Judge Bradley S. Phillips, Case Number: 24STCV08925, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Bradley S. Phillips, Case: 24STCV08925, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV08925 Hearing Date: October 8, 2024 Dept: 26

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court, having considered the arguments of Plaintiffs and Defendant, rules as follows with regard to Defendant’s Demurrer. The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ opposition was not timely filed, but the Court has considered the substance of the opposition.

Defendant’s demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action, to the extent it alleges a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiffs have not alleged the elements of fraud with the specificity required by California law.

Defendant’s demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action, to the extent it alleges a claim for fraudulent concealment, is overruled. Defendant argues first that the claim is barred by the economic-loss rule. That is wrong. Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (Aug. 22, 2024) ___ Cal.5^th ___, 553 P.3d 1213, 1236 (answering “yes” to the question: “Under California law, are claims for fraudulent concealment [as opposed to affirmative deception] exempted from the economic loss rule?”) (brackets in original). Defendant argues second that Plaintiffs have not alleged a relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendant that gave rise to a duty to disclose. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded such facts. See Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5^th 828, 843-845 (overruling the sustaining of Nissan’s demurrer on alleged facts very similar to those here). (The Court notes that the California Supreme Court granted review in Dhital on February 1, 2023, with further action deferred pending disposition of Rattagan, supra. The Court, however, denied a request for the Court of Appeal’s opinion to be depublished.)

Defendant’s demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action, for violation of the Unfair Competition Law, is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiffs did not oppose that aspect of Defendant’s demurrer, but the Court nevertheless grants leave to amend to address the deficiencies identified by Defendant.