Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 25PSCV00456, Date: 2025-06-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25PSCV00456    Hearing Date: June 2, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

(1)   DEFENDANT FCA US, LLC’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to the 4^th COA for breach of implied warranty of merchantability as it is barred by the SOL and sustained with leave to amend as to the 6^th COA for fraudulent concealment COA.

(2)   DEFENDANT FCA US, LLC’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES is MOOT based upon the court’s ruling on the fraudulent inducement concealment COA.

(Proposed orders have been filed for both.)

Background

This is a lemon law case arising from Plaintiff JUAN PLACENCIA’s purchase of a 2022 Ram 1500.

On February 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants FCA US, LLC. (“Defendant”) and SIERRA CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM OF MONROVIA 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

On May 1, 2025, Defendant filed the instant demurrer and motion to strike.

To date, as of 5/29/25, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

This Demurrer is based on the following grounds:

1. Implied warranty claim is barred by the statute of limitations and lack of privity: Plaintiff’s implied warranty cause of action is time-barred by the statutes of limitations set forth in Civil Code section 1791.1(c) and lack of privity.

2. Failure to establish fraud claim: Plaintiff’s Fraudulent Inducement - Concealment claim is inadequately pled, relying on generalized allegations without specific, actionable misrepresentations or omissions. Moreover, the alleged facts do not establish the requisite duty to disclose, materiality and justifiable reliance. Further, the Economic Loss Doctrine bars Plaintiff’s claim and Plaintiff may not recover in tort for damages that are purely economic in nature.

1.     Implied Warranty Claim is Time-Barred

As set forth in the motion, the Song-Beverly Act limits implied warranties to the shorter of one year from the purchase date or the product’s useful life. Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1306; Civ. Code § 1791.1(c). Plaintiff purchased the vehicle on September 11, 2022 making the implied warranty expire by September 11, 2023. (Compl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff did not file his lawsuit until two years later on February 10, 2025, well outside the limitations period.

Therefore, as Plaintiff’s implied warranty claim is barred as a matter of law by the statute of limitations and no opposition has been filed to indicate otherwise, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT leave to amend as to the 4^th COA as amendment would be futile.

2.     Fraud

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s fraudulent concealment claim fails because it lacks the specificity required under California law. The court agrees. Plaintiff’s use of “information and belief” suggests speculation rather than factual allegations. (See Demurrer p. 12, citing Carney v. Simmonds (1957) 49 Cal.2d 84, 100; Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550 (“[A] pleading made on information and belief is insufficient if it ‘fails to allege specific facts upon which the belief is founded.’”)].) Plus, Plaintiff’s reliance upon preproduction testing data and early consumer complaints may be insufficient to allege fraud. (See Demurrer p. 13.)[1]

Therefore, the court SUSTAINS the demurrer as to the fraud COA with leave to amend.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to the 4^th COA but sustained with leave to amend as to the 6^th COA, which renders the MTS moot.