Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2023-00008320-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 02, 2023

11/03/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00008320-CU-BC-CTL MORGAN VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 05/01/2023

Defendant Ford Motor Company's Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED.

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no 'speaking demurrers'). (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.) The complaint must be liberally construed and given a reasonable interpretation, with a view to substantial justice between the parties. (Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140–141; see also, Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-12 [in ruling on demurrers, courts treat as being true 'not only the complaint's material factual allegations, but also facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged'].) This is a lemon law case concerning a 2018 Ford F150.

The third cause of action sufficiently states facts to constitute a violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(a)(3). This section requires manufacturers to '[m]ake available to authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period.' Here, the Complaint alleges these facts. (Complaint, at ¶¶ 46-47.) In addition, Defendant's authorized repair facilities were unable to effect repairs and conform the vehicle to warranty. (Id., at ¶¶ 17, 70.) Ford's argument Plaintiff failed to allege specifically what parts or literature were not available at any repair facilities is not supported by legal authority and is information in Defendant's possession.

(E.g., Complaint, at ¶¶ 58, 61a.) The fifth cause of action sufficiently states facts to constitute fraudulent inducement (concealment). This case is analogous to the facts in Dhital v. North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828 (rev. granted Feb. 1, 2023 (S277568), request for depublication denied).

The necessary elements of a concealment/suppression claim consist of: (i) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (ii) knowledge of falsity; (iii) intent to defraud (i.e., to induce reliance); (iv) justifiable reliance; and (v) resulting damage. (Dhital v. North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828, 843-44, rev. granted Feb. 1, 2023 (S277568), request for depublication denied.) Suppression of a material fact is actionable when there is a duty of disclosure, which may arise form a relationship between the parties, such as a buyer-seller relationship. (Ibid.) Fraud, including Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2968756  37 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  MORGAN VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY [IMAGED]  37-2023-00008320-CU-BC-CTL concealment, must be pleaded with specificity. (Ibid.) Like in Dhital, Plaintiff alleged the transmission and engine systems in Plaintiff's vehicle were defective.

(e.g., Complaint, at ¶ 14.) Defendant knew of the defects and the hazards they posed (e.g., id., at ¶ 25-31); Defendant had exclusive knowledge of the defects but intentionally concealed and failed to disclose that information (id., at ¶¶ 56-60); Defendant intended to deceive Plaintiff by concealing known problems (id., at ¶ 59); Plaintiff would not have purchased the car if they had known of the defects (id., at ¶¶ 67-68); and Plaintiff suffered damages in the form of money paid to purchase the car (id., at ¶ 23).

Critically, Plaintiff alleged the transmission and engine systems were defective and caused safety problems such as hesitation and delayed acceleration, harsh or hard shifting, jerking, shuddering and juddering. (Complaint, at ¶ 25.) Defendant was aware of the defects as a result of product testing and technical service bulletins and consumer complaints that were made to the NHTSA, Defendant and its dealers. (Id., at ¶¶ 25-33, 61; Dhital, supra, at p. 728 (declining to hold that the plaintiffs were required to allege more detailed allegations about the alleged defects and that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded their fraud claim).) Defendant's argument Plaintiff did not plead a buyer-seller relationship is not persuasive. There are other circumstances in which nondisclosure or concealment may constitute actionable fraud, such as when the defendant has exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to plaintiff and when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff. (See, LiMandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 326, 336; Bigler-Engler v. Breg, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 276, 311.) As discussed above, these circumstances are factually alleged in the Complaint. (Complaint, at ¶¶ 25-33.) The Complaint also alleges the parties entered into a warranty contract. (E.g., Complaint, at ¶¶ 9-10, Ex. A.) In liberally construing the complaint, sufficient facts are alleged.

At this stage, the economic loss rule also does not bar the fraudulent concealment cause of action.

(Dhital, supra, 84 Cal.App.5th at p. 837-843 (concluding, under California law, the economic loss rule does not bar a claim for fraudulent inducement by concealment as it falls within an exception to the economic loss rule and reversing the trial court's order sustaining manufacturer's demurrer).) For these reasons, the demurrer is OVERRULED in its entirety.

Concluding Orders Defendant is ordered to file and serve an answer by November 17, 2023.

If the tentative ruling is confirmed without modification, the minute order will be the Court's final order.

Defendant is also ordered to serve notice of the Court's final order on all appearing parties by November 7, 2023.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2968756  37