The fraud claim is dismissed. Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim, arguing that plaintiffs have failed to allege a special relationship between the parties. Plaintiffs claim that a special relationship existed because defendant sold memberships to them with the knowledge that such contracts were premised on the Club remaining open and its facilities being available and plaintiffs had no other source to ascertain such information. In order to recover on a theory of negligent misrepresentation, plaintiffs must establish that, because of some special relationship with the defendant which generally implies a closer degree of trust than the ordinary buyer-seller relationship, the law imposes on that defendant a duty to use reasonable care to impart correct information, that the information was false or incorrect, and that the plaintiff reasonably relied upon the information given. Here, plaintiffs have not alleged a fiduciary or confidential relationship between the parties which would impose a duty to impart certain information concerning the providing of facilities to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs merely allege a duty on defendant's part to impart the information.
This is insufficient for negligent misrepresentation, and the court shall dismiss the claim. Section 626 provides that it is an unfair and deceptive trade practice to misrepresent directly or indirectly in its advertising, promotional materials, or in any manner the size, location, facilities or equipment of its studio, or place of business or the number or qualifications of its personnel. Section 625 involves the failure to provide notice of an assignment. The evidence submitted indicates that defendant did notify plaintiffs of the assignment of the Vertical Club from Hilton Hotels Corporation. In addition, defendant did not misrepresent the facilities it would provide to plaintiffs.