Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV19174, Date: 2023-12-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19174    Hearing Date: December 4, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff ROXANA YAGHOOBIAN initiated this lemon law action on August 11, 2023.   The operative Complaint alleges Song-Beverly violations against Defendants VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. (VWGOA) and negligent repair against Defendant VOLKSWAGEN SANTA MONICA (VWSM).   

            On October 18, 2023, Defendants filed their demurrers to the Complaint. Defendants argue that the negligent repair claim, cause of action five, is barred by the economic loss rule.

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Ibid.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.) A complaint will survive demurrer if it sufficiently apprises the defendant of the issues, and specificity is not required where discovery will clarify the ambiguities. (See Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 608.) All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the complaint. (Kruss v. Booth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 699, 713.)

MEET AND CONFER

Before filing a demurrer or a motion to strike, the demurring or moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to or the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, 435.5.) The Court notes that Defendant has complied with the meet and confer requirement.

//

//

//

DISCUSSION

I. Economic Loss Rule

            Economic loss consists of “damages for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the defective product or consequent loss of profits—without any claim of personal injury or damages to other property.” (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988.) The economic loss rule requires a purchaser to recover in contract for purely economic loss due to disappointed expectations, unless the purchaser “can demonstrate harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise,” such as some form of personal injury or damage to property other than the defective product itself. (Ibid.)

            However, economic losses arising from a contract of sale are distinct from economic losses arising from negligent performance of services. (See North American Chemical Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 764, 777.) The economic loss rule does not apply “when the commercial relationship of the parties does not involve the sale of goods or products, nor the rules developed under the law merchant and the Uniform Commercial Code, but rather relates only to the performance of services.” (Id. at pp. 780-81.) Because “every person is responsible for the injuries caused by his or her lack of ordinary care . . . [there is] no reason to distinguish between different types of damage.” (Id. at p. 783.) Civil Code section 1714 “does not distinguish among injuries to one's person, one's property or one's financial interests.” (Ibid.) “Recovery for injury to one's economic interests, where it is the foreseeable result of another's want of ordinary care, should not be foreclosed simply because it is the only injury that occurs.” (Ibid.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s negligent repair claim against Bravo is not barred by the economic loss rule.

            The elements of negligence have otherwise been adequately alleged, and ambiguities may be resolved in discovery. Plaintiff is not required to know at this stage precisely how VWSM negligently repaired the vehicle.

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ demurrers are OVERRULED.   Defendants to file an answer within 20 days.