Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 24STCV17770, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV17770    Hearing Date: October 31, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Defendant's Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Defendant's Demurrer is overruled.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Niels F. Hayns filed this lemon law action against American Honda Motor Co. Inc. (Defendant), alleging that he purchased a 2022 Honda CR-V (Vehicle), manufactured by defendant, the Vehicle exhibited defects within the warranty period, and Defendant was failed to repair the vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts.

The causes of action are: (1) Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d); (2) Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b); and (3) Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3).

The motion now before the Court is Defendant's Demurrer to the third cause of action.

LEGAL STANDARD

When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. Wilson v. Transit Authority of City of Sacramento (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 716, 720-21. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994. “A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not on the evidence or facts alleged.” E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315. As such, courts assume the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. Ibid. However, it does not accept as true deductions, contentions, or conclusions of law or fact. Stonehouse Homes LLC v. City of Sierra Madre (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 531, 538.

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 (court shall not "sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment"); Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 ("A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment."). The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.

ANALYSIS

In this Song-Beverly action, Defendant demurrers to the third cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 1793.2 subdivision (a)(3). Defendant argues this cause of action is insufficiently pleaded.

The Court finds that the third cause of action is sufficiently pleaded. Civil Code section 1793.2 (a)(3) provides that a dealer must “[m]ake available to authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period.” A pleading must allege facts, not conclusions. Jones v. Grewe (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 950, 954.) The rules of pleading require only ultimate facts be alleged; evidentiary facts supporting the allegation of ultimate fact need not be pleaded. McKelly v. Washington Mut., Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1469. “[I]t has long been recognized that ‘[the] distinction between conclusions of law and ultimate facts is not at all clear and involves at most a matter of degree’…. What is important is that the complaint as a whole contain sufficient facts to apprise the defendant of the basis upon which the plaintiff is seeking relief.” Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 (quoting Burks v. Poppy Construction Co. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 463, 473) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to make sufficient service literature and replacement parts available to its authorized service and repair facilities to effect repairs during the express warranty period. Comp. ¶ 30. He also alleges that Defendant’s representatives have failed to service and/or repair the Vehicle to conform to the applicable warranties. Compl. ¶¶ 13-14. Taken together, these allegations are sufficient to state a claim for violation of section 1793.2 subdivision (a)(3). At the pleading stage, Plaintiff need not identify what parts or literature Defendant failed to provide, as Defendant has superior knowledge of what parts and literature it made available. See Okun v. Superior Court (1981) 29 Cal.3d 442, 458 (“Less particularity is required when it appears that defendant has superior knowledge of the facts, so long as the pleading gives notice of the issues sufficient to enable preparation of a defense.”) Accordingly, the demurrer is overruled.

CONCLUSION

Defendant's demurrer is overruled. Defendants have twenty days to answer.