Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV01130, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01130    Hearing Date: October 3, 2023    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

 

(1)   GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S DEMURRER is MOOT.

 

(2)   GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES is MOOT.

 

As Plaintiff filed a FAC after the demurrer, which now serves as the operative complaint, the demurrer and motion to strike to the original complaint are moot.

 

Background

 

This is a lemon law case.

 

On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant action against GM for:


1.     Violation Of Song-Beverly Act - Breach Of Express Warranty

2.     Violation Of Song-Beverly Act - Breach Of Implied Warranty

3.     Violation Of The Song- Beverly Act Section 1793.2

4.     Fraud – Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment.

 

On June 20, 2023, Defendant filed the instant demurrer with a motion to strike.

 

On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC) realleging the same 4 causes of action.

 

Discussion

 

Though the demurrer and motion to strike are moot, the court finds it prudent to comment on a pattern exhibited by Plaintiff’s law firm: filing amended complaints after Defendant files a demurrer.

 

For example, in other recent cases before this court—such as HILARIO SALVADOR GARCIA vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (23PSCV00925) and ALEXANDRA BERNARDA AREVALO vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC (22PSCV01729)—Plaintiff’s firm (Quill & Arrow, LLP) filed amended complaints after GM filed a demurrer.

 

While a party may file an amended complaint prior to the court’s hearing on the demurrer (CCP section 472), Plaintiff’s firm appears to do so despite attesting that Defendant’s arguments lack merit during meet and confer efforts. But filing an amended complaint tacitly suggests that certain arguments are meritorious, hence the need to amend the complaint prior the hearing. What is more, Defense Counsel explains that Plaintiff’s firm has filed in excess of 150 demurrers against GM and that now Plaintiff’s firm “refuses to substantively meet and confer at all.” (Valencia Decl., p. 2.) A reasonable and good-faith attempt at informal resolution “requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439 [as used in discovery context].)

 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s firm’s decision to not engage in meaningful, informal discussions with GM’s counsel—whether it be with this case or with others, or with this motion or with others—circumvents a fundamental tenant of the rule of legal ethics: candor between counsel. 

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the foregoing, the demurrer and motion to strike are moot. For any future motions filed with this court, the court will ascertain whether good faith discussions were met based upon the declarations/supporting documents filed in support thereof.