Indeed, "empty promises . . [or]. . . alleged deceptions [that] would not have deterred a reasonably diligent plaintiff" from bringing her claims "do not meet the . . . restrictive standards of equitable estoppel because 'due diligence is not satisfied by passive reliance upon an allegedly deceptive statement'." Weber v. Geffen Records, Inc., 63 F.Supp. 2d 458, 466-67 (SD NY 1999) (citing Margo v. Weiss, 1998 WL 14 Under California law, equitable estoppel requires that, "(1) the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; (2) that party must intend that his or her conduct be acted on, or must so act that the party asserting the estoppel had a right to believe it was so intended; (3) the party asserting the estoppel must be ignorant of the true state of facts; and (4) the party asserting the estoppel must reasonably rely on the conduct to his or her injury." Lukovsky v. City and County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissing complaint and finding that plaintiff had not plead equitable estoppel).