Judge Christian R. Gullon, Case Number: 25PSCV00627, Date: 2025-06-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 25PSCV00627, Date: 2025-06-02 Tentative Ruling

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

This is a lemon law case arising from Plaintiff Jennifer Becerra’s 2022 purchase of a new 2022 Ford Mustang.

On February 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; TMAG Hemet F, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company DBA Tim Moran Ford Hemet for:

Defendant demurs to the 4^th COA for fraudulent concealment on the grounds that Plaintiff fails to plead essential elements to state the claim and it is barred by the economic loss rule.

For purposes of this ruling, the court will only focus on whether the Plaintiff’s Fraudulent Inducement-Concealment Claim pleads fraud with the requisite specificity, which the court believes she does notb as this COA is premised upon general and conclusory allegations namely in that it fails to allege what “facts” about transmission defects with this vehicle Defendant knew but failed to disclose.

The complaint alleges that Defendant committed fraud by allowing the Vehicle to be sold to Plaintiff without disclosing that the Vehicle and its 10R80 transmission were defective. However, there are no allegations supporting a purported defective transmission with this vehicle as the complaint references other makes and models such as the 2017-2021 Ford F-150; 2018-2021 Lincoln Navigator; 2018-2021 Ford Mustang; 2018-2021 Ford Explorer; 2019-2021 Ford Ranger; 2020 Ford Explorer; 2020 Lincoln Aviator; and 2020 Ford Transit throughout the United States equipped with purported defective 10R80 transmissions to allege that Defendant knew of defects with this make and model. (See also Demurrer p. 10, citing See Santana v. FCA US LLC, 56 Cal.App.5th 334, 345 (2020) [“The very existence of a warranty presupposes that some defects may occur. Thus, the occurrence of a few defects that . . . mostly involved vehicles Santana did not own, is not enough to demonstrate an intent to conceal a defect….”].)[1]

To the extent that Plaintiff relies upon Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828 to support its proposition that it has pled enough, that case supports this court’s ruling. In Dhital, the plaintiffs alleged that the vehicle had transmission problems “including stalling, jerking, and lack of power” such that the “[u]ncertain and unpredictable performance of a vehicle's engine” caused serious safety concerns. (Id. at p. 833.) Of import, the plaintiffs alleged Nissan manufactured or distributed more than 500,000 vehicles that were equipped with defective continuously variable transmissions (CVT's), including plaintiffs’ model years 2013 through 2017.

Here, however, Plaintiff does not predicate Defendant’s knowledge of a supposed defect based upon the engine in the same make/model.

Thus, Plaintiff is requested to amend the pleading to specifically provide what specific allegations show Defendant had exclusive knowledge of the transmission defect with a 2022 Ford Mustang. (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.”].)

[1] In fn. 2 on page 12 of the opposition, Plaintiff maintains that Santana is unavailing. While Santana did not involve a demurrer but rather an appeal from a jury trial, the legal reasoning as to why the appellate court that there was no substantial evidence of fraudulent concealment is relevant. There the appellate court also focused on timeline of when and what recalls were issued (i.e., what year, with what frequency, and for what vehicle).