Judge Carolyn M. Caietti, Case Number: 37-2023-00014028-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2023-00014028-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-10 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 09, 2024

05/10/2024 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 37-2023-00014028-CU-BC-CTL MENDOZA VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 11/20/2023

Defendant General Motors, LLC's Demurrer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.

Defendant General Motors, LLC's Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

Demurrer 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'].) Here, the demurrer to the fifth cause of action is based on several grounds.

First, a statute of limitations defense does not appear clearly and affirmatively from the FAC. The FAC sufficiently states facts to support the delayed discovery exception of the statute of limitations. (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 806-07 [the discovery rule postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action]; FAC, at ¶¶ 23-32, 34 [repair history allegations and 'Plaintiffs discovered Defendant's wrongful conduct alleged herein shortly before filing this Complaint, as the Vehicle continued to exhibit symptoms of defects following Defendant's unsuccessful attempts to repair them.'] & ¶¶ 45-49 [fraudulent concealment tolling (estoppel) allegations].) These same facts also support fraudulent concealment. (Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1185, 1192 ['The doctrine of fraudulent concealment tolls the statute of limitations where a defendant, through deceptive conduct, has caused a claim to grow stale.'].) The fifth cause of action sufficiently states facts to constitute a cause of action for fraudulent inducement-concealment. (Dhital v. North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828 (rev. granted Feb. 1, 2023 [523 P.3d 392]). Plaintiffs alleged the vehicle had defects, specifically its 8-speed transmission was Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3054440 44 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: MENDOZA VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] 37-2023-00014028-CU-BC-CTL defective and susceptible to sudden and premature failure; Defendant knew of the defects and the hazards posed; Defendant had exclusive knowledge of the defects but intentionally concealed and failed to disclose the information; Defendant intended to deceive Plaintiffs by concealing the defects; Plaintiffs would not have purchased the car had they known of the defects; and they suffered damages in the form of purchasing a vehicle Plaintiffs would not have leased or purchased had Plaintiffs known the true facts and unknowingly exposing themselves to the risk of liability, accident and injury. (e.g., FAC, at ¶¶ 69-85; Dhital, supra, at p. 844 (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).) The fifth cause of action also states sufficient facts to show a transactional relationship giving rise to a duty to disclose. With regard to duty, suppression of a material fact is actionable when there is a duty of disclosure, which may arise from a relationship between the parties, such as a buyer-seller relationship.

(Dhital, supra, at p. 843-44; FAC, at ¶¶ 7-8.) Plaintiffs also adequately alleged Defendant had exclusive knowledge of the transmission defects and actively concealed the information with the intent to induce Plaintiffs into purchasing the vehicle. (FAC, at ¶¶ 81-84.) For these reasons, the demurrer is OVERRULED in its entirety.

Motion to Strike A motion to strike a complaint in whole or in part is governed by C.C.P. sections 435 through 437. C.C.P.

section 436, provides that '[t]he court may, upon a motion ... (a) [s]trike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter...(b) [s]trike out 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.' The grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or matter subject to judicial notice. (C.C.P., § 437(a).) In ruling on a motion to strike, courts must assume the truth of the complaint's allegations and liberally construe the allegations with a view to substantial justice. (Dawes v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 91 & C.C.P., § 452.) To recover punitive damages, a plaintiff must plead specific facts demonstrating oppression, fraud or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294(a).) A pleading that fails to adequately allege facts supporting a claim for punitive damages is subject to a motion to strike. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164.) Here, Defendant seeks to strike the prayer for punitive damages. Plaintiff's fifth cause of action for fraud survives demurrer and the punitive damages allegations also survive the motion to strike.

For these reasons, the motion to strike is DENIED.

Concluding Orders Defendant is ordered to file and serve an answer by May 24, 2024.

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 May 14, 2024.

Plaintiffs are reminded to comply with Department 70's Policies and Procedures and to provide courtesy copies of all motion paperwork.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3054440 44