Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV02757, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV02757    Hearing Date: November 6, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend.

Background

This is a lemon law case arising from Plaintiff’s April 2021 purchase of a 2018 Ram ProMaster City.

On August 26, 2024, Plaintiffs VANESSA AVILES and ALEJANDRO AVILES filed suit against Defendant FCA US, LLC 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

5.     Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment

On October 9, 2024, Defendant filed the instant demurrer.

On October 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their opposition.

On October 30, 2024, Defendant filed its reply.

Discussion

Defendant demurs to the 3^rd COA and the 5^th COA on the grounds that both fail to allege sufficient facts to constitute a valid COA. (See Notice of Demurrer.)

A.     3^rd COA

Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (A)(3) provides that “(a) Every manufacturer of consumer goods sold in this state and for which the manufacturer has made an express warranty shall . . . (3) Make available to authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period.”

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated this statute because Defendant “failed to make available to its authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period” and as a result thereof, they “have been damaged.” (¶64.) Where statutory remedies are invoked, “[f]acts, not conclusions, must be pleaded,” and the facts “must be pleaded with particularity.” (Demurrer p. 2, quoting Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 410, citing Zumbrun v. University of Southern California (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1, 8.)

Here, however, this allegation merely recites the statutory language; “[t]here are no facts whatsoever to give FCA any indication of what portion of the Civil Code section specifically was violated.” (Demurrer p. 3, italics original.) The same conclusory allegation applies to Plaintiffs’ allegation that they have damaged as nothing more is given as to the nature of the damages.

To the extent that Plaintiffs argue that Defendant possesses the information as to what information was withheld and that “modern discovery procedures necessarily affect the amount of detail that should be required in a pleading,” that falls short of pleading standards. While discovery as to more specifics may be had, Plaintiffs, at the very least, must plead ultimate facts.

Therefore, the court SUSTAINS the demurrer as to the 3^rd COA with leave to amend.

B.     5^th COA for Fraud

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant did not disclose the defective nature of the transmission even though Defendant knew of the transmission defect “through sources not available to consumers such as Plaintiffs, including but not limited to preproduction testing data, early consumer complaints about the Transmission Defect made directly to Defendant FCA and its network of dealers, aggregate warranty data compiled from Defendant FCA's network of dealers, testing conducted by Defendant FCA in response to these complaints, as well as warranty repair and part replacements data received by Defendant FCA from Defendant FCA's network of dealers, amongst other sources of internal information.” (¶74, subd. (a.) Courts apply a heightened standard “to evaluate the factual underpinnings of a fraudulent concealment claim at the pleading stage.” (Demurrer p. 3, quoting Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 324 Cal.Rptr.3d 433, 465.)

Here, as with above, this allegation is not specific. The alleged defect is with a 9-speed transmission; Plaintiffs have not pled how of any the foregoing sources speak to that defect. With that, as the claim fails for lack of the requisite particularity, the court need not address Defendant’s other arguments (i.e., as to transactional relationship between the parties, corporate ratification, economic loss rule, etc.)

Therefore, the demurrer as to the 5^th COA is sustained with leave to amend.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend for Plaintiffs to plead more particular facts.