Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV00152, Date: 2024-05-02 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.

Case Number: 24PSCV00152    Hearing Date: May 2, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

(1)   Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc’s Notice Of Demurrer And Demurrer To Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

(2)   Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc’s Notice Of Motion And Motion To Strike Portions Of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is MOOT.[1]

Background

This is a lemon law case arising from Plaintiff’s 2016 purchase of a 2016 Honda Accord. Plaintiff alleges that the Subject Vehicle has sensing defects, engine defects, electrical defects, amongst other defects and nonconformities. (See First Amended Complaint (FAC) ¶12.)

On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff Lisa Gutierrez filed suit against Defendant American Honda Motor Company (“Honda” or “Defendant”).

On February 16, 2024, Defendant filed a demurrer and a motion to strike (MTS).

On March 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a FAC.

On April 4, 2024, Defendant filed the instant demurrer x MTS.

On April 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed her opposition to both.

On April 25, 2024, Defendant filed its reply.

Discussion

Defendant demurs to the 5^th COA for fraudulent concealment on the grounds that fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a valid cause of action and is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 430.10(e) and 430.10(f), respectively.

Here, the court agrees with Defendant that the FAC fails to comply with heightened pleading requirement for fraud. Plaintiff attempts to show that Defendant was aware of the sensing problems based upon complaints posted on the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. (FAC p. 14.) However, those complaints pertain to a 2017 Honda CR-V; 2017 CRV EX; 2019 Honda CR-V; 2018 Honda Accord; and 2020 Honda Accord. But the subject vehicle is a 2016 Honda Accord.

Thus, Plaintiff is requested to amend its pleading to specifically provide what specific allegations show Defendant had exclusive knowledge of the sensing defect and what specific allegations show that Honda actively concealed said sensing defect. (See also Code of Civ. Proc., §425.10(a), § subsection [complaint “shall contain . . . [a] statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.”].) 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, as the FAC conclusively alleges that Defendant was “fully aware of the Sensing Defect affecting the Subject Vehicle, [but] Defendant and its agents concealed the existence and nature of the Defect from Plaintiff at the time of purchase” (FAC p. 15), the demurrer is sustained and the MTS is moot.