Judge Christian R. Gullon, Case Number: 22PSCV01057, Date: 2023-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 22PSCV01057, Date: 2023-08-14 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

(1) DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT-CONCEALMENT is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

(2) DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES is MOOT.

This is a lemon law case. Plaintiff, NORMA PEREZ VILLARREAL, (“Plaintiff”) alleges the following against Defendant, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., (“Defendant”): In 2021, Plaintiff purchased a used Honda Odyssey (“Subject Vehicle”), which includes a “9-Speed Transmission” (“Transmission”). According to Plaintiff, Defendant knew that the Transmission is defective and dangerous; yet, despite this knowledge since 2014, Defendant concealed the existence of those defects from Plaintiff and other consumers.

On October 19, 2022, Defendant filed a Demurrer and a motion to strike, which the court sustained with leave to amend and found moot, respectively.

On March 24, 2023, Defendant filed the instant demurrer with a motion to strike (MTS).

Defendant again demurs to the 2^nd cause of action for Fraudulent Inducement[1] on similar grounds, including that Plaintiff’s fraudulent deceit allegations are insufficient to state a cause of action as a matter of law.

Previously, the court sustained the demurrer on the grounds that Plaintiff’s complaint did not plead sufficient facts to establish that Defendant concealed or suppressed a material fact because the disclosures were publicly available, such as on transmission service bulletins.[2] (See December 6, 2022 Tentative Ruling.) Additionally, the court reasoned that not only were disclosures about the Transmission publicly available, but the complaint was also unclear as to representation Defendant failed to make to this particular Plaintiff about the Transmission in this particular subject vehicle.

Now, while the FAC has made some changes, not all elements of fraudulent inducement/concealment are met. For example, the element that “the defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff” has not been alleged. Plaintiff in opposition only points to ¶94 to show intent (Opp. p. 4), but ¶94 merely conclusively states that “AMERICAN HONDA intended to deceive Plaintiff by concealing the known issues with the Transmission Defect in an effort to sell the Subject Vehicle.” “[M]ere conclusory allegations that the omissions were intentional and for the purpose of defrauding and deceiving plaintiffs and bringing about the purchase … are insufficient [to show fraud by concealment].” (Demurrer p. 14, quoting Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal. 3d at 347.)

Therefore, the FAC fails to state sufficient facts to support a fraudulent inducement/concealment COA. For that reason, the court need not reach Defendant’s other arguments (e.g., economic loss doctrine).

Based on the foregoing, the court SUSTAINS the demurrer with leave to amend.[3] The motion to strike punitive damages is MOOT as Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint.

[1] As stated in the court’s prior tentative, the elements of an action for fraud and deceit based on a concealment are: (1) the defendant must have concealed or suppressed a material fact, (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage. (Boschma v. Home Loan Ctr., Inc., 198 Cal. App. 4th 230, 248, see also CACI 1901.) Additionally, fraud must be pled specifically wherein a plaintiff shows “how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal. App. 3d 59, 74.) Furthermore, as for this requirement of specify, in an action against a corporation, a plaintiff must “allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written. (Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.

[2] Plaintiff explains and alleges that information transmitted by way of technical service bulletins (“TSBs”) is only directed to dealership personnel tasked with repairing vehicles, and as such, are not sent to consumers or the general public. (FAC ¶¶ 50.) This information is not readily available to consumers or the general public. (Ibid.) (Opp. p. 4.)

[3] That said, should Plaintiff not allege sufficient facts to support each element, the court will not grant leave to amend on a future demurrer.