NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Defendant's Demurrer - with Motion to Strike

 

Defendant's Demurrer - with Motion to Strike is overruled.

 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Juliana Guzman filed this action against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Defendant), and doe defendants 1-10, alleging that she purchased a 2020 Honda Pilot, manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant, which suffers from a sensing defect that the Defendant has failed to repair.

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); (3) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2 subdivision (a)(3); (4) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability; and (5) Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment.

 

Defendant filed a Demurrer - with Motion to Strike. Plaintiff filed an opposition.   

 

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.

Further, the court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. Code Civ. Proc., § 436(a). The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. Id., § 436(b). The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false, or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. Id. § 436. The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. Id. § 437.

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

I. Statute of Limitations

First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

A. Song Beverly Claims

“[The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act] supplements, rather than supersedes, the provisions of the California Uniform Commercial Code.” Krieger v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 205, 213 (Kreiger). Because “California Commercial Code section 2725 specifically governs actions for breach of warranty in a sales context… [it] controls rather than the general provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (a) for liabilities created by statute.” Id. at p. 215 (fn. omitted).

California Commercial Code section 2725, subdivision provides in relevant part,

(1) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued….

(2) A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party’s lack of knowledge of the breach. A breach of warranty occurs when tender of delivery is made, except that where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods and discovery of the breach must await the time of such performance the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered.

“[T]he ‘future performance’ exception to the four-year limitations period applies only when the seller explicitly has agreed to warrant its product for a defined period of time.” Carrau v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 281, 291.

Here, Plaintiff purchased the vehicle on May 25, 2020. FAC ¶ 5. Plaintiff filed this action more than four years later, on August 8, 2024. Defendant argues that the cause of action accrued on the date of the sale, and therefore this action is untimely.

Defendant’s argument fails because the express warranty provides that the “vehicle is covered for 3 years or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first.” FAC, Ex. A at p. 8. This warranty “explicitly extends to future performance of the goods.” Cal. Com. Code § 2725, subd. (2). Krieger, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d at pp. 216-17, is directly applicable. Faced with an almost identical set of facts, the court held “a written warranty that all defects would be repaired for a period of 36 months or within the first 36,000 miles of use” constitutes “an express warranty of future performance….”) (citations omitted). Because the warranty consists of a promise to repair, discovery of the breach can only occur after the manufacturer fails to repair the vehicle. Id. at p. 218 ([B]ased on the evidence that [plaintiff] determined that respondent had been unable to repair his car as of May 30, 1984, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the cause of action accrued in May 1984.). Here, the breach occurred after, at the earliest, sometime after Plaintiff first presented the vehicle for repair, on August 6, 2021. Therefore, the action is within the four-year limitations period for breach of a sale’s contract.

B. Fraud

“An action for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake [must be brought within three years]. The cause of action in that case is not deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.” Code Civ. Proc., § 338.

[S]tatutes of limitation do not begin to run until a cause of action accrues.” Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 806. “[A] cause of action accrues at ‘the time when the cause of action is complete with all of its elements.’” Ibid (quoting Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 397 (Norgart)). “An exception is the discovery rule, which postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action.” Norgart, supra 21 Cal.4th at p.389. “Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing, that someone has done something wrong to her.” Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1110.

“In order to raise the issue of belated discovery, the plaintiff must state when the discovery was made, the circumstances behind the discovery, and plead facts showing that the failure to discover was reasonable, justifiable and not the result of a failure to investigate or act.” Bastian v. County of San Luis Obispo (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 520, 527 (citations omitted). Once properly pleaded, belated discovery is a question of fact. Ibid. A demurrer may be sustained only where “the trial court could determine as a matter of law that failure to discover was due to failure to investigate or to act without diligence.” Ibid.

Plaintiff fails to oppose Defendant’s arguments that the fraudulent concealment claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Court sustains the demurrer with leave to amend as to that claim. See Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 995, fn. 3 (“if no legal argument with citation to authority ‘is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration.’” [Citation omitted] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

II. Motion to Strike

To state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code Section 3294. College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721. These statutory elements include allegations that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (a). “‘Malice’ means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” Civ. Code, § 3294 subd. (c)(1). “‘Oppression’” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” Civ. Code, § 3294 subd. (c)(2).

“In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff. In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth. In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation.” Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255. (citations omitted). “The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim.” Grieves v. Superior Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 (fn. omitted) (citations omitted).

Because the Court sustained the demurrer as to the fraud claim, it likewise grants the motion to strike punitive damages with leave to amend.

 

CONCLUSION

Defendant's Demurrer is sustained in part and overruled in part. Defendant’s Motion to Strike Punitve Damages is granted.  Plaintiff has twenty days leave to amend.