Judge Christian R. Gullon, Case Number: 24PSCV00196, Date: 2024-04-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV00196, Date: 2024-04-15 Tentative Ruling

DEFENDANTS FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S AND FRITT FORD’S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

This is a lemon law case arising from Plaintiff’s 12/22/2020 purchase of a 2019 Ford F150 and transmission defects with vehicle’s 10-speed transmission.

On January 17, 2024, Plaintiff HECTOR TRIGUEROS filed suit against Defendants FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FRITTS FORD for:

1.     Violation Of Subdivision (D) Of Civil Code Section 1793.2

2.     Violation Of Subdivision (B) Of Civil Code Section 1793.2

3.     Violation Of Subdivision (A)(3) Of Civil Code Section 1793.2

4.     Breach Of The Implied Warranty Of Merchantability (Civ. Code, § 1791.1; § 1794; § 1795.5)

5.     Negligent Repair

6.     Fraudulent Inducement - Concealment

Defendants demur to the 5^th COA for negligent repair and 6^th COA for Fraudulent Inducement - Concealment on the grounds that both fail to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action and are otherwise barred by the economic loss rule.

“[T]he elements of a cause of action for fraud based on 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.”’” (Jones v. ConocoPhillips Co. (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th 1187, 1198, quoting Kaldenbach v. Mutual of Omaha Life Ins. Co. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 830, 850).

As for pleading the fourth element of inducement, “mere conclusionary allegations that the omissions were intentional and for the purpose of defrauding and deceiving plaintiffs and bringing about the purchase ... and that plaintiffs relied on the omissions in making such purchase are insufficient [to show fraud by concealment].” (Linear Tech. Corp. v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal. App. 4th 115, 132.) Additionally, as for pleading fraud against a corporate defendant, “it was necessary for him to allege the name of the person who spoke, his authority to speak, to whom he spoke, what he said or wrote, and when it was said or written.” (Mason v. Drug, Inc. (1939) 31 Cal.App.3d 697, 703.) Thus, absent pleading facts to support the elements above without specificity, will not be presumed. (Mason v. Drug Inc. (1939) 31 Cal.App.2d 697, 703; see also Tenet Healthsystem Desert, Inc. v. Blue Cross of California (2016) 245 Cal. App. 4th 821, 838, quoting Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638 [“[F]raud must be pled specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice. Thus, ‘the policy of liberal construction of the pleadings ... will not ordinarily be invoked to sustain a pleading defective in any material respect.’”].)

The 6^th COA alleges, in pertinent part, that Defendant “was well aware and knew that the transmission installed in the Vehicle was defective but failed to disclose this fact to the Plaintiff at the time of the sale and thereafter …[Defendant] acquired its knowledge of the Transmission Defect prior to Plaintiff acquiring the Subject Vehicle, through sources not available to consumers such as Plaintiff, including but not limited to pre-production and postproduction testing data, early consumer complaints about the transmission defect made directly to FMC and its network of dealers, aggregate warranty data compiled from FMC's network of dealers, testing conducted by FMC in response to these complaints, as well warranty repair and part replacements data received by FMC from FMC's network of dealers, amongst other sources of internal information. (Complaint p. 6.)

Here, the court requests that Plaintiff amend its pleading to specifically provide, rather than incorporating by reference, what specific allegations show Defendant had exclusive knowledge of the Transmission Defect and what specific allegations show that Ford actively concealed said Transmission Defect. (See e.g., Demurrer p. 14.) And upon amendment, the amended complaint should only reference relevant defects. For example, the vehicle purchased is a 2019 F-150; thus, it is unclear how technical service bulletins ("TSBs") concerning a 2017 F-150 or even TSBs referencing a Ford Raptor are relevant. (See Complaint ¶26.) Based thereon, the court need not reach Defendant’s other arguments such as whether the economic loss rule applies.

To state a viable claim for negligent repair, a plaintiff need allege that the repair facility (1) owed a duty to use ordinary care and skill, (2) breached its duty, (3) caused damage to the plaintiff, and (4) that this was causation of damages. (Lytle v. Ford Motor Co. (E.D.Cal. 2018) 2018 WL 4793800; citing Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1072; see also Def.’s Memo, p. 21, ln. 12-13, [duty, breach, causation, and damages].)

Defendants demur, on one ground, that this COA fails because to plead the essential element of damages (e.g., out-of-pocket expenses, or any other monetary losses or property damage he may have sustained).

The opposition appears to concede the need for clarity in the pleading as Plaintiff argues that the “Complaint does not affirmatively disclose that the damages alleged are only economic losses such as prospective economic advantage, and not other damages such as property damage (i.e., to the car itself).” (Opp. p. 14:10-12.)

Therefore, the court sustains the demurrer as to the 5^th COA. The court need not address Defendant’s other arguments such as whether the economic loss rule applies.