Judge: David Sotelo, Case: 21STCV44036, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV44036 Hearing Date: December 6, 2022 Dept: 40
MOVING PARTY: Defendant American Honda
Motor Co., Inc.
Plaintiffs Lazaro Cid and Maria Cid (the “Plaintiffs”) bring
this Lemon Law action pursuant to a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging (1)-(4)
four claims rooted in the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”)
and (5) a claim for Concealment against Defendants American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
(“Honda”) and Does 1-10.
Honda now brings an opposed Demurrer against the Concealment
claim and a Motion to Strike allegations related to (1) the concealment of an
alleged defect in the Infotainment system and (2) punitive damages.
The Court DECLINES to take Judicial Notice of the three case
law exhibits presented by the Cid Plaintiffs where these are not in any way
dispositive to the Court’s discussion infra.
First Amended Complaint, Concealment: SUSTAINED,
With Leave.
“[T]he elements of an action for fraud and deceit based on a
concealment are: (1) the defendant must have concealed or suppressed a material
fact, (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the
plaintiff, (3) the defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed
the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff must have
been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of
the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the concealment or
suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage.” (Boschma
v. Home Loan Center, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 248.)
Plaintiffs generally argue that they “adequately allege the
transmission [sic] installed in the Subject Vehicle was defect [sic], that
Defendant had exclusive knowledge of the defect through its internal sources
but concealed the defect, and that Plaintiffs suffered damages by purchasing a
vehicle he would not otherwise have purchased. (Compl., ¶¶s 79-89)” (Opp’n to
Demurrer, 2:24-27 [Note: where FAC alleges Concealment of a defect in the
Subject Vehicle’s Infotainment system—i.e., system related to information and
entertainment via touchscreen displays, button panels, and audio/video
interfaces—not in the transmission system].)
Honda challenges this position by arguing “Plaintiffs fail
to plead facts sufficient to establish that Honda had knowledge of any material
facts concerning [the alleged Infotainment defects in the] Plaintiffs’ Vehicle
at the time of the sale.” (Demurrer, 10:3-11:1.)
On Opposition, Plaintiffs point to paragraphs 57 to 58, 62,
68, 71, and 84 for pleadings of knowledge. (Opp’n to Demurrer, 3:21-22,
5:26-6:2.)
A review of these passages fails to show pleadings beyond
conclusions of fact amounting to knowledge of a material defect related to the Infotainment
system as of November 10, 2017, when Plaintiffs purchased their 2018 Honda
Odyssey (the “Subject Vehicle”). Paragraphs 57 and 58 plead mere conclusions of
fact insofar as they claim that “pre-production and post-production testing,
numerous customer complaints, warranty claims data compiled from Honda’s
network of dealers, testing conducted by Honda in response to these complaints,
as well as warranty repair and part replacements data received by Honda from
Honda’s network of dealers” as sources of Honda’s knowledge as to a defect in
the Infotainment system in the Subject Vehicle without sufficiently elaborating
as to the nature and scope of these sources. Paragraphs 60 to 62 of the FAC
reference online reviews of the relevant Infotainment system that could be
relevant to Honda’s investigation into such a defect, but do not, as pleaded,
impute knowledge of a defect. Paragraph 68 of the FAC seems to plead defects in
the 2019 rather than 2018 Odyssey without (1) explaining how the alleged bases
for knowledge of defects in the 2019 Infotainment system amount to knowledge of
defects in the 2018 system or (2) explaining how online reviews show definite
knowledge on Honda’s part as opposed to grounds for knowledge thereof—reasonability
of such grounds aside. Paragraph 71 simply states that by combining all the
above allegations—which are pleaded more as conclusions of fact than
evidentiary facts relating to actual knowledge on which Honda directors or
decision-makers could have acted—show knowledge as to the defect in the 2018
Odyssey’s Infotainment system, which is unpersuasive given the foundational
pleadings are themselves unpersuasive as to knowledge. And paragraph does not
plead a basis for knowledge of the alleged Infotainment defect so much as pleading
that Honda did not disclose knowledge of such defect.
Simply, the FAC fails overall to plead Honda’s knowledge as
to a material defect in the 2018 Odyssey purchased by the Cid Plaintiffs with
regard to the Infotainment system therein.
Infotainment Defects: GRANTED, With Leave.
Honda’s Motion to Strike challenges a number of passages
related to the Concealment claim alleged in the FAC as through alleged defects in
the Infotainment system of the Subject Vehicle. (Strike Mot., 4:18-5:28
[challenging (1) Page 2, lines 6-8, (2) Page 10, lines 27-28 (fn. 4), (3) Page
15, lines 21-23, (4) Page 15, line 28, (5) Page 19, lines 9-10, (6) Page 19,
lines 27-26, (7) Page 19, lines 27-28, (8) Page 20, lines 10-11, (9) Page 20,
lines 23-26, and (10) Page 21, lines 21-24], 6:22-10:12 [argumentation].)
The Court STRIKES these passages as “immaterial allegation[s]”
or “irrelevant matter” for the purposes of a motion to strike because they
involve “allegation[s] that [are] not essential to the statement of a claim or
defense” in the FAC (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subds. (b)(1), (c)) insofar as
the surviving SBA claims alleged at pages 5 through 8 of the FAC are not
grounded in these pleadings and given that the Court has sustained the Demurrer
as to the FAC’s Fraud claim alleged in pages 9 to 21 of the FAC.
Punitive Damages: GRANTED, With Leave.
Honda’s Motion to Strike also challenges the punitive
damages prayer at Page 21, line 17 (i) of the FAC. (Strike Mot., 10:13-22.)
Because of the above demurrer this cause of action cannot support punitive
damages. Further, the surviving claims do not support punitive damages because
they are grounded in the SBA. (Civ. Code, § 1794, subds. (b)-(e) [statutory
subdivisions limiting recovery for causes of action arising under the
Song-Beverly Act and which notably fail to include punitive damages into the
recovery scheme].)
Defendant’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED as to Concealment.
Defendant’s Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint is
GRANTED as follows:
(A) (1) Page 2, lines 6-8, (2) Page 10, lines 27-28 (fn. 4),
(3) Page
15, lines 21-23, (4) Page 15, line 28, (5) Page 19, lines 9-10, (6) Page 19,
lines 27-26, (7) Page 19, lines 27-28, (8) Page 20, lines 10-11, (9) Page 20,
lines 23-26, and (10) Page 21, lines 21-24 of the First Amended Complaint
because these allegations are not, as pleaded, essential to the
statement or defense of the surviving SBA claims pleaded in the FAC; and
(B) Page 21, line 17 (i) of the FAC—prayer for punitive
damages—because this claim for relief (1) is neither pertinent to nor supported
by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense in the FAC, and (2) is a demand for
judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the FAC, where
the only remaining viable claims in the First Amended Complaint relate to the
SBA and where the SBA does not contemplate punitive damages.
The Demurrer is Sustained and Motion to Strike Granted WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND.