Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV01986, Date: 2024-08-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV01986    Hearing Date: August 27, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

 

(1)   Defendant General Motors LLC’s Demurrer And Motion To Complaint is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

(2)   General Motors LLC’s Motion To Strike Portions Of Plaintiff’s Complaint is MOOT.

 

Background

 

This is a lemon law case arising from plaintiff’s purchase of a new 2021 Chevrolet Bolt and the vehicle’s battery problems.

 

On June 20, 2024, Plaintiff Ramon Hilario filed suit against Defendants General Motors, LLC and Cumming Chevrolet for:


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

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

3.     Violation Of Song-Beverly Act-Section 1793.2

 4.     Fraud

5.     Violation Of Business & Professions Code 17200

 6.     Negligent Repair

 

On July 26, 2024, Defendant GM filed the instant demurrer and a MTS.

 

On August 2, 2024, Cumming filed its answer.

 

On August 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

 

On August 19, 2024, Defendant GM filed its reply.

 

 

 

 

Discussion

 

GM demurs to the 4th and 5th COAs on the grounds that the complaint fails to state sufficient facts.

 

Here, the court cannot address all the arguments raised as the complaint does not specify problems with Plaintiff’s 2021 Bolt. For example, knowledge of a fire igniting from a Bolt in March 2019 does not show GM had knowledge of mileage range and safety issues in Plaintiff’s 2021 Bolt. (Demurrer p. 14, citing Complaint ¶28.) Or the fact that the NHTSA in 2017 issued a generalized warning about overcharging any lithium-ion battery—not Bolt batteries in particular—does not demonstrate GM had knowledge of mileage range and safety issues involving the Subject Vehicle. (Demurrer p. 14, citing Complaint ¶23.) In sum, the complaint must allege specific allegations pertaining to this make and model, which the complaint has failed to do or otherwise make clear.

 

Therefore, the court sustains the demurrer with leave to amend. Effectively, the motion to strike is moot.[1]

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the foregoing, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend and the MTS is moot.


[1] Defendant GM files a MTS on the grounds that absent the fraud and UCL claim, the remaining COAs are insufficient to support punitive damages. (See MTS p. 3:13-15.)