Yu v. Zoom Video Communications CA6

── Yu v. Zoom Video Communications CA6 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/27/26 Yu v. Zoom Video Communications CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCOTT YU, H052030 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 22CV405290) v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al. Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff Scott Yu sued defendants Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (Zoom) and its chief executive officer, Eric Yuan, for shares of Zoom stock that plaintiff believed defendants owed him. Plaintiff, a software engineer, knew Yuan from their previous work together at another company. Plaintiff alleged that in October 2011, Yuan sought plaintiff’s help with an “ ‘App’ ” that would later become known as Zoom. (Boldface omitted.) According to plaintiff, they reached an agreement for plaintiff to work as a consultant providing user interface (UI) design services through June 2012, and in return, plaintiff would receive 20,000 shares of Zoom stock. Plaintiff allegedly provided UI services for two months from late October to late December 2011. Years later, in 2019, Zoom went public. When plaintiff contacted Yuan to ask about the Zoom shares, he denied that any shares were owed to plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a civil complaint against Yuan and Zoom in 2022. In the operative second amended complaint, plaintiff alleged causes of action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud. Defendants filed a demurrer, contending that plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts as to each cause of action and that the claims were time-barred. The trial court sustained the demurrer to each cause of action without leave to amend. A judgment was subsequently entered in favor of defendants. On appeal, plaintiff contends that he sufficiently alleged each cause of action, that the claims were not time-barred, and that in any event, the trial court should have granted leave to amend. He also argues that he was denied due process at the hearing on the demurrer. For reasons that we will explain, we determine that the demurrer was properly sustained as to each cause of action, but that plaintiff should be granted leave to amend as to the breach of contract and fraud causes of action. We will therefore reverse the judgment in favor of defendants and direct the trial court to enter a new order granting leave to amend regarding the breach of contract and fraud causes of action. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Complaint and First Amended Complaint Plaintiff filed a civil complaint in September 2022, against Zoom and Yuan for breach of contract and specific performance. Before any responsive pleading was filed by defendants, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint alleging (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) fraud, and (4) securities fraud. Defendants demurred to each cause of action on the ground that plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts, including that each cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court in a tentative written ruling initially overruled the demurrer as to each cause of action except as to the securities fraud claim. However, after a hearing on the demurrer and upon further review, the court filed a written order sustaining the demurrer with leave to amend regarding the (1) breach of cont