Lapping v. Wydham Vacation Ownership, Inc.
- Donna Ryu
- 4:19-cv-07549
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Lapping v. Wydham, Judge Ryu granted Muro summary judgment, ruling his career-growth statement could not support Lapping’s California fraud claim.
The ruling resolved Christopher Lapping’s fraud claim against Matthew Muro in Muro’s favor. It did not address the other arguments raised in Muro’s motion.
What happened
Lapping v. Wydham Vacation Ownership, Inc. arose from Christopher Lapping’s employment and termination by Wyndham Vacation Ownership. Lapping claimed that supervisor Matthew Muro’s promise to help him become a leader and site director supported a fraud claim.
Muro moved for summary judgment, arguing that Lapping could not prove fraud. Lapping opposed the motion. The court concluded that Muro’s statement was a prediction or expression of desire about the future, not a factual misrepresentation that could support fraud under California law.
Judge Ryu granted Muro’s motion for summary judgment and directed the clerk to enter judgment for Muro against Lapping. The court did not reach Muro’s other arguments.
The detailed version
- Lapping v. Wydham Vacation Ownership, Inc. · No. 4:19-cv-07549
- Donna Ryu
- Sept. 28, 2020
Background
Christopher Lapping brought state-law claims arising from his employment with and termination by Wyndham Vacation Ownership. The court had previously dismissed Wyndham Worldwide Corporation by agreement of the parties. The order addressed Matthew Muro’s motion for summary judgment on Lapping’s remaining claim against Muro.
Lapping began working for Wyndham Vacation Ownership as a sales representative, later transferred to a San Francisco location, and was promoted to front-line sales manager. After he transferred to another property, Muro became his supervisor. Lapping said Muro promised to “groom” him into becoming a leader and site director, and that he relied on the promise regarding job security. Lapping later complained to human resources about practices he considered unfair and fraudulent, and he was terminated.
Claim and Summary-Judgment Standard
Lapping asserted one claim against Muro for fraud. Under California law, fraud requires a misrepresentation, knowledge that it was false, intent to defraud, justifiable reliance, and resulting damage. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Once the moving party meets its burden, the opposing party must provide evidence—not merely rely on the complaint—showing that a reasonable jury could rule in its favor.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that Lapping’s claim against Muro rested on Muro’s statement that he would help Lapping become a leader and site director. The court explained that a fraud claim ordinarily must involve a representation of past or existing fact, rather than an opinion, aspiration, or prediction about the future.
The court determined that Muro’s statement was, at most, a desire or prediction about future events, not a representation of a verifiable fact. Because Lapping offered no evidence that Muro made a factual misrepresentation, the court concluded that Muro was entitled to summary judgment. The court therefore did not reach Muro’s remaining arguments, including arguments about punitive damages, workers’ compensation, and whether Lapping raised this fraud theory too late.
Disposition
Judge Donna Ryu granted Muro’s motion for summary judgment. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for Muro and against Lapping.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.