Lapping v. Wydham Vacation Ownership, Inc., 4:19-cv-07549

Christopher Lapping worked for Wyndham Vacation Ownership (WVO) as a sales rep and was promoted to front line sales manager; he transferred to the Donatello site in San Francisco in mid‑2016 where Matthew Muro became his supervisor.
Muro told Lapping he would “groom [him] into becoming a leader and a site director”; Lapping says he relied on that promise for job security and later alleges Muro acted to undermine his career.
Lapping complained to HR in February 2017 about unfair and allegedly fraudulent practices and was terminated by WVO on March 22, 2017.
Lapping sued, asserting a single claim of fraud against Muro (among other defendants originally). Muro moved for summary judgment.
The court found the only asserted misrepresentation by Muro was the promise to “groom” Lapping; it characterized that statement as an aspirational prediction/opinion rather than an actionable representation of existing fact.
Because no factual misrepresentation was shown, the court granted summary judgment for Muro and entered judgment in his favor; it did not reach Muro’s other defenses (punitive damages, workers’ comp preclusion, or pleading-timing arguments).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Muro made an actionable misrepresentation (fraud element)	Muro promised to groom Lapping into a leader/site director and had no intention to perform; Lapping relied on it	The statement was a promise/prediction or expression of intent — non‑actionable opinion, not a verifiable fact	Court held the statement was a forward‑looking, aspirational statement (non‑actionable); no misrepresentation established; SJ for Muro
Whether punitive damages should be available	Lapping sought punitive damages based on alleged intentional misconduct	Muro argued punitive damages were unsupported without actionable fraud	Court did not reach this issue after finding no actionable fraud
Whether the fraud claim is barred by the workers’ compensation scheme	Lapping argued tort claim independent of workers’ comp	Muro argued workers’ comp bars the fraud claim	Court did not decide because it resolved the case on the misrepresentation issue
Whether Lapping improperly raised a new fraud theory at summary judgment	Lapping relied on the alleged promise by Muro	Muro contended the complaint did not allege fraud by him and the theory was raised too late	Court did not reach this argument after deciding no actionable misrepresentation

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant’s burden to show absence of genuine dispute on material facts for summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for determining genuine issues of material fact at summary judgment)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (court should not adopt a party’s version of facts when blatantly contradicted by the record)
Lazar v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. 4th 631 (1996) (elements of common‑law fraud in California)
Nibbi Bros., Inc. v. Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 205 Cal. App. 3d 1415 (1988) (distinguishing actionable representations of fact from nonactionable opinion)
Borba v. Thomas, 70 Cal. App. 3d 144 (1977) (actionable misrepresentation must concern past or existing facts)
Richard P. v. Vista Del Mar Child Care Serv., 106 Cal. App. 3d 860 (1980) (predictions of future events are ordinarily nonactionable)
Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund v. Apollo Group, Inc., 774 F.3d 598 (9th Cir. 2014) (aspirational statements are not objectively verifiable; securities‑fraud analysis informative)
Retail Wholesale & Dept. Store Union Local 338 Ret. Fund v. Hewlett‑Packard Co., 845 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir. 2017) (aspirational/forward‑looking statements express desires and are not verifiable)