Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV34739, Date: 2023-01-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV34739 Hearing Date: January 25, 2023 Dept: 52
Defendant American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. moves
for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff Abbas Torabian’s sixth cause of
action for fraudulent inducement. This
cause of action requires: (1) defendant omitted, concealed, or suppressed a
material fact; (2) defendant had a duty to disclose the fact to plaintiff; (3)
defendant intentionally omitted or concealed the fact with intent to defraud
plaintiff; (4) plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would have
acted otherwise if he had known of the concealed fact; and (5) the omission
caused damages. (Boschma v. Home Loan
Center, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 248.) A cause of action for fraud requires
specifically pleading each element. (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement
System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384 (Alfaro).)
Plaintiff again fails to
specifically allege facts for the final element: his reliance on any
concealment caused damages. A plaintiff
must “allege specific facts not only showing he or she actually and justifiably
relied on the defendant’s misrepresentations, but also how the actions he or
she took in reliance on the defendant’s misrepresentations caused the alleged
damages.” (Rossberg v. Bank of
America, N.A. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1499.)
Plaintiff’s third amended complaint
alleges defendant concealed that 2018-2019 Honda Odyssey vehicles “contain a
defective integrated in-vehicle communication, navigation, and entertainment
system – commonly referred to as an ‘infotainment system’ – that causes many of
the Vehicles’ features (e.g., navigation system, rear-entertainment system,
audio system, backup camera, cabin watch system) to malfunction. As a result of the defect, Honda Vehicles’
infotainment systems frequently freeze or crash (in which case no features
connected to [the] system are operational, including the navigation technology,
the radio, and the rearview camera).”
(3AC, ¶ 60.)
Defendant’s alleged concealment of a
defect in the infotainment system can only cause plaintiff damages if that
defect is present in his vehicle and it harmed him. Plaintiff does not specifically allege that. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint now
alleges some details about two times he presented the vehicle for repairs. In October 2019, plaintiff presented the
vehicle “with various concerns, including infotainment concerns.” (3AC, ¶ 21.)
“[T]he audio system … required an upgrade as the audio system was
malfunctioning. The authorized repair
facility performed repairs.” (Ibid.)
In October 2020, plaintiff again
presented the vehicle “with various concerns, including infotainment
concerns.” (Id., ¶ 22.) “Recalls 20-050 and 20-051 were performed.
These recalls required the rear view camera to be replaced as the image was
blacked out and the audio unit to be updated again as it was still
malfunctioning. The authorized repair
facility performed repairs.” (Ibid.)
Plaintiff’s alleged reliance on defendant
concealing the infotainment system defect cannot cause damages if defendant
repaired the defect without charging plaintiff.
Plaintiff does not allege he was charged for any repairs.
As for current problems with the vehicle,
plaintiff makes only vague and opaque allegations. The third amended complaint alleges, “Thereafter,
Plaintiff continued to experience symptoms of the infotainment defects and
other defects despite Defendant’s representations that the various defects were
repaired.” (3AC, ¶ 23.) It further alleges that “the Vehicle
continued to exhibit symptoms of the defects following Defendant’s unsuccessful
attempts to repair it.” (Id., ¶
24.)
These allegations suffice for claims under
the Song-Beverly Act but not for fraud, which must be specifically pleaded. As the court stated when sustaining the
demurrer to plaintiff’s second amended complaint: “A specific allegation would
be, for example, that plaintiff’s vehicle’s infotainment system currently does
not display the view from the backup camera. … If indeed plaintiff’s infotainment system is currently
malfunctioning, or has ever malfunctioned, plaintiff can easily say so in a
clear, specific, and straightforward manner.”
(June 14, 2022 minute order, p. 3.)
Plaintiff has not alleged what is
currently wrong with the vehicle in a clear, specific, or straightforward
manner. He alleges he “continued to
experience symptoms of the infotainment defects and other defects” (3AC, ¶ 23)
and the vehicle “continued to exhibit symptoms of the defects” (id., ¶
24). He does not allege what
symptoms he experienced after the repairs in October 2020. He does not allege, for example, that the
rearview camera’s image continues to black out or that the infotainment system freezes
or crashes frequently.
The
rule of relaxed specificity for fraudulent omission or concealment does not apply. The specificity requirement does not fully
apply to cases of omission or concealment nondisclosure because it is difficult
to show “how” and “by what means” something did not happen. (Alfaro,
supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1384.) Unlike omissions, defects
or damages happen. Plaintiff knows at
least as much as defendant about the condition of his vehicle and what damages,
if any, he has suffered. Plaintiff fails
to state facts in his third amended complaint that clearly answer these
questions.
Leave
to Amend
After a successful motion for judgment on the pleadings, where “there is
a reasonable possibility that the defects can be cured by amendment, leave to
amend must be granted.” (Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75
Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) The plaintiff
bears the burden of “demonstrat[ing] how the complaint can be amended.” (Smith
v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 700,
711.) “Leave to amend should be denied
where the facts are not in dispute and the nature of the claim is clear, but no
liability exists under substantive law.”
(Lawrence v. Bank of America (1985)
163 Cal.App.3d 431, 436.)
Plaintiff
has not shown a reasonable possibility of amending the complaint to cure its
defect. Plaintiff already amended the
complaint three times. In its order
sustaining the demurrer to the second amended complaint, the court gave
specific examples of how plaintiff could cure the defect. He has not done so. Plaintiff has made no offer of proof as to specific
facts he could allege to cure the defect.
If he could specifically allege such facts, he would have done so by
now.
Disposition
Defendant American Honda Motor Co.’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff Abbas Torabian’s sixth cause
of action for fraud is granted without leave to amend.