fungus, and failing to maintain and repair those units. [4AC ¶ 43.] Plaintiff further asserts that under California law, “the same act may be both a breach of contract and a tort.” Perry v. Robertson, 201 Cal.App.3d 333, 340, 247 Cal.Rptr. 74 (1988). Accordingly, Plaintiff does not dispute that his negligence claim seeks solely economic damages, but alleges that he should be permitted to go to trial on both his contract and tort causes of action regardless of the lack of economic injury. Defendants respond, and the Court agrees, that Plaintiff is precluded from pursuing his negligence claim because it seeks recovery in tort for purely economic loss, and is thus barred by California’s economic loss doctrine. See KB Home v. Super. Ct., 112 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1079, 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 587 (2004) (<HOLDING>). Under California law, the economic loss
holding economic loss rule did not bar recovery of tort damages on statutory fraud claim based upon fraudulent inducement holding that economic loss rule precluded the plaintiffs tort claims because they only alleged injuries to the subject of the contract itself holding that subject to certain exceptions the economic loss rule bars recovery in tort for economic damages arising out of matters governed by contract holding that economic loss rule precludes recovery of economic damages only in the absence of personal injury or property  damage claims holding economic loss doctrine bars negligence claim based on service contract