As for the status of Kung Fury 2, Hasselhoff hopes that the legal hurdles will be removed, believing that the film will eventually see the light of day. “According to David [Sandberg], he has entrenched himself in Sweden and whether [Kung Fury 2] will continue with the money because of an ox or not. I`m sure it will be done,” Hasselhoff said. “If it will be done next year, I don`t know. Whether it is done in the next two years, absolutely yes. The Hoff is confident that the sequel to the cult classic will see the light of day despite legal problems. “Trust exists where the misrepresentation or non-disclosure was a direct cause of the conduct of the plaintiff who changed his legal relationship and where, in the absence of such misrepresentation or secrecy, it is unlikely that he entered into the contract or any other transaction.” (Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1226, 1239.) Furthermore, for the pleading, “[a] general allegation of incitement or trust appears sufficient, provided that the complaint also contains sufficient facts to demonstrate that the applicant`s conduct was consistent with normal prudence and the reasonableness of the circumstances”. (Lingsch v. Savage (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 729, 739, Fn. 6.) “Except in the rare cases where the undisputed facts do not leave room for reasonable disagreement, whether a plaintiff`s confidence is reasonable is a question of fact.” [Quotes.] “The question whether a party`s confidence was justified may, however, be decided legally if reasonable minds can only reach a single conclusion on the basis of the facts.” [Quotes.] (Manderville v.
PCG&S Group, Inc. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1486, 1498–1499.) A particular reservation of uncertainty, section 430.10(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, is at a disadvantage and will only be upheld if the pleading is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond – that is, he cannot reasonably determine which problems should be admitted or denied, or which charges or claims are directed against him. (Khoury v. Maly`s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Even if the plea is somewhat vague, “ambiguities can be clarified within the framework of modern methods of discovery.” (Ibid.) “We are deeply disappointed that Creasun did not meet its funding obligations. Our attempts to resolve this situation have been nothing but walls and inappropriate measures to further obscure Creasun`s breach of contract. We carry out these legal steps with the full support of other financiers and the main parties involved. The filmmakers can`t wait to finish this film as it deserves. The seventh plea alleges infringement of Company Code 25503, which is a civil plea for infringement of Code 25110. (Corp. Code, 25503, [“Every person who contravenes section 25110, …, is liable to any person who acquires the security sold from him in contravention of this section who may bring an action to recover the consideration paid by him for such security, plus interest thereon at the legal rate, less the amount of income arising therefrom, where this warranty is offered.
or compensation if he no longer possesses the security or if the consideration paid for the guarantee cannot be returned.”].) Finally, the eighth plea alleges infringement of Companies Code 25403: “A person who knowingly provides substantial assistance to another person in violation of a provision of the Securities Act shall be deemed to have infringed that provision to the same extent as the person to whom the assistance was provided.” (Apollo Capital Fund, LLC v. Roth Capital Partners, LLC (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 226, 255.) In the present case, the Court finds that this is the first instance in which it has upheld the cross-appeal on those grounds. It is therefore only now that the incidental plaintiff Creasun has challenged the defects of law in her pleas.