Plaintiff or Defendants object. C. Estoppel In their Opposition, Defendants Tokuda and Shen argue that Plaintiff cannot pursue its claims because of the doctrine of estoppel. As Tokuda and Shen explain, the doctrine of estoppel has four elements: “(1) The party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act that the party asserting the estoppel had a right to believe it was so intended; (3) the other party must be ignorant of the true state of facts; and (4) he must rely upon the conduct to his injury.” Skulnick v. Roberts Express, Inc., 2 Cal.App.4th 884, 890, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 597 (1992). The reliance must be reasonable. Martinez v. Scott Specialty Gases, Inc., 83 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1238, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 403 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Tokuda and Shen argue that Plaintiff is
holding that a credibility determination based on among other things a tendency to exaggerate was supported by substantial evidence holding that pleading was insufficient where the plaintiff failed to among other things set forth the dates of any fraudulent statements holding it error to admit testimony where among other things there was no evidence that defendants appearance had changed since the time of the robbery holding individual defendant liable where he among other things made inquiries into the business obligations under the flsa holding that ejstoppel requires among other things reasonable reliance on the other partys actions and rejecting estoppel where plaintiffs could not reasonably have been misled