Judge Alison Mackenzie, Case Number: 24STCV26252, Date: 2025-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 24STCV26252, Date: 2025-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV26252 Hearing Date: March 6, 2025 Dept: 55

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

Defendant’s Demurrer to Fraudulent Concealment Claim is sustained with leave to amend. Defendant’s Motion to Strike punitive damages is granted with leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

On October 9, 2024, Plaintiff Bryan James Miller filed this Song Beverly action against General Motors, LLC (Defendant).

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; (5) Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; and (6) Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment.

Defendant filed a Demurrer with Motion to Strike. Plaintiff did not file 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 the 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. Demurrer

Defendant demurs to the sixth cause of action for fraudulent inducement-concealment.

A. Statute of Limitations

First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claim for fraudulent inducement – concealment is barred by the three-year statute of limitations.

“‘[A] demurrer on the ground of the bar of the statute of limitations does not lie where the complaint merely shows that the action may have been barred. It must appear affirmatively that, upon the facts stated, the right of action is necessarily barred.’” Stueve Bros. Farms, LLC v. Berger Kahn (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 303, 313 (quoting Baright v. Willis (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 303, 311) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, when a plaintiff relies on a theory of fraudulent concealment, delayed accrual, equitable tolling, or estoppel to save a cause of action that otherwise appears on its face to be time-barred, he or she must specifically plead facts which, if proved, would support the theory.” Mills v. Forestex Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 625, 641.

Plaintiff purchased the 2016 GMC Sierra on March 8, 2016. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on October 9, 2024. Therefore, unless the cause of action accrued no earlier than October 9, 2021, or the limitations period was subsequently tolled, Plaintiffs’ claim is barred by the statute of limitations.

Plaintiff alleges that “the running of the limitation periods have been tolled by, inter alia, the following doctrines or rules: equitable tolling, the discovery rule, equitable estoppel, the repair rule, and/or class action tolling (e.g., the American Pipe rule) via the filing of Speerly et al. v. General Motors, LLC, No. 19-cv-11044-DML-DRG (E.D. Mich.) (April 10, 2019).” Compl. ¶ 23.

1. Delayed Discovery

[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. Once belated discovery is pleaded, the issue of whether plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence in discovering the negligent cause of the injury is a question of fact.” 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 alleges that the cause of action did not accrue until he “discovered Defendant's wrongful conduct alleged herein shortly before the filing of the complaint, as the Vehicle continued to exhibit symptoms of defects following GM's unsuccessful attempts to repair them.” Compl. ¶ 24. However, Plaintiff fails to allege when the defects manifested, when he brought the vehicle in for repair, or how many times Defendant attempted repairs before he discovered Defendant’s wrongful conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not pleaded adequate facts to invoke delayed discovery.

2. Repair Rule/Estoppel

“Tolling during a period of repairs generally rests upon the same legal basis as does an estoppel to assert the statute of limitations, i.e., reliance by the plaintiff on the words or actions of the defendant that repairs will be made.” Cardinal Health 301, Inc. v. Tyco Electronics Corp.(2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 116, 133-134.

In order to assert equitable estoppel, the following four elements must be present: (1) the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct be acted on, or must so act that the party asserting estoppel had a right to believe it was so intended; (3) the party asserting estoppel must be ignorant of the true state of facts; and (4) he must rely upon the conduct to his injury. Sofranek v. County of Merced (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1250 ( Sofranek ); see also Evid. Code § 623.) The elements of equitable estoppel must be “especially pleaded in the complaint with sufficient accuracy to disclose the facts relied upon” Sofranek, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at p. 1250.

As with delayed discovery, Plaintiff provides no details showing that Defendant made representations regarding its ability to repair the vehicle or when it made those representations. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to plead facts showing that the repair rule tolled the statute of limitations.

3. American Pipe

Plaintiff further alleges the class action tolling applies citing American Pipe & Const. Co. v. Utah (1974) 414 U.S. 538 (American Pipe). Under the American Pipe doctrine, the timely filing of a class action tolls the applicable statute of limitations for putative class members “from the day a class claim is asserted until the day the suit is conclusively not a class action….” Falk v. Children's Hospital Los Angeles (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1464 (quoting Sawyer v. Atlas Heating & Sheet Metal Works, Inc. (7th Cir. 2011) 642 F.3d 560, 563.)

The Complaint alleges that the statute of limitations was tolled by a third-party’s filing of a class action lawsuit titled Speerly et al. v. General Motors, LLC, No. 19-cv-11044-DML-DRG (E.D. Mich.) (April 10, 2019). Compl. ¶ 23 However, the Complaint fails to allege that the class certification was denied, or when. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to plead class action tolling.

4. Equitable Tolling

“Equitable tolling is a judge-made doctrine ‘which operates independently of the literal wording of the Code of Civil Procedure’ to suspend or extend a statute of limitations as necessary to ensure fundamental practicality and fairness.” Lantzy v. Centex Homes (2003) 31 Cal.4th 363, 370 (citations omitted).

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts showing equitable tolling applies.

While the Complaint identifies several potential theories for tolling the statute of limitations, it alleges no facts to support any of these theories. Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to the sixth cause of action is sustained with leave to amend.

II. Motion to Strike

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.

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 (College Hospital). These statutory elements include allegations that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (a).

In light of the Court sustaining the demurrer to the fraudulent inducement concealment claim, there is no longer any basis for punitive damages. Accordingly, the motion to strike is granted with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Demurrer to the sixth cause of action is sustained. Defendant’s Motion to Strike punitive damages is granted. Plaintiff has twenty days leave to amend.