Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 23TRV00182, Date: 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRV00182    Hearing Date: April 7, 2023    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                         April 7, 2023

Moving Parties:                      Defendant Ford Motor Company with joinder by Autonation Ford Torrance

Responding Party:                  None

Demurrer to Complaint

The court considered the moving papers.  No opposition was filed.

RULING

            The demurrer to the 3^rd cause of action in the complaint is OVERRULED.  Defendants are ordered to file answers within ten days.

BACKGROUND

On January 20, 2023, plaintiff Daniel Newmann filed a complaint against Ford Motor Company and Autonation Ford Torrance for (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act breach of express warranty, (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act breach of implied warranty, (3) violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, and (4) negligent repair with respect to a 2021 Mustang Mach-E.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

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.  “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.  Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.”  SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.  “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 v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.

DISCUSSION

            Defendant Ford Motor Company demurs to the 3^rd cause of action for violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 on the grounds that it fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain.

            The complaint alleges that on April 6, 2022, plaintiff purchased a 2021 Mustang Mach-E.  Complaint, ¶7.  Defendants violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act by failing to conform the vehicle to the express written warranties within a reasonable number of repair attempts or within the warranty periods, and by failing to promptly replace the vehicle or make restitution to plaintiff.  Id., ¶15.  The defects, malfunctions, ,and nonconformities that were presented to defendant’s authorized repair facilities multiple times and substantially impair the use, value, and/or safety of the vehicle.  Id., ¶16.  Defendants breached the implied warranty of merchantability as stated in Civil Code §§1791.1 and 1792 in the vehicle has malfunctions, and nonconformities render the vehicle unfit for the ordinary purposes for which it is used, and it would not pass without objection in the trade.  Id., ¶26.

            The 3^rd cause of action re-alleges the above allegations.  Id., ¶32.  Plaintiff further alleges that defendant Ford intentionally placed the subject vehicle, with defective components, into the stream of commerce.  They knew the components and the vehicle suffered from defects to the electrical systems that have caused the vehicle to lose power.  The issues that affected the vehicle were extensive and manufacturer knew these defects existed and intentionally sold defective vehicles to the general public. Defendant Autonation Ford Torrance was well aware of the highly defective components in the vehicle.  Defendant intentionally failed to properly diagnose the issues in the vehicle.  Defendant installed remanufactured and or reconditioned components that were not of the same quality as the OEM components.  Defendant also installed components, which it knew were defective and would not correct the mechanical issues exhibited in the subject vehicle.  Defendant performed negligent repairs because they knew the manufacturer was unlikely to reimburse them for multiple repair due to the same underlying issue.  Id., ¶39.

The purpose of the Unfair Business Practices Act (Bus. & Prof. Code §17000, et. seq.) is to “safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented.”  Bus. & Prof. Code §17001.  The Unfair Business Practices Act shall include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.”  Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.  “By proscribing ‘any unlawful’ business act or practice, the UCL ‘borrows’ rules set out in other laws and makes violations of those rules independently actionable.  However, a practice may violate the UCL even if it is not prohibited by another statute.”  Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Com. v. Insomniac, Inc. (2015) 233 Cal. App. 4th 803, 835 (citation omitted).  A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under these statutes must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation.  Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 612, 619. 

Defendant argues that plaintiff has failed to allege any purported “unlawful,” “unfair,” or “fraudulent” business practices with the required specificity.  Further, defendant contends, plaintiff generally alleges against all defendants, non-specific allegations of unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices.  Defendant also argues that plaintiff lacks standing because plaintiff has not actually incurred any economic loss as a result of any alleged business practice, nor has he alleged that he actually relied on any of Ford’s statements to his detriment.

The court notes that defendants did not demur to the 1^st and 2^nd causes of action for violations of Song-Beverly Act.  Plaintiff alleges that defendant Ford breached statutory duties.  Thus, the court finds that the allegations are sufficient to support an “unlawful” business practice based on the Song-Beverly Act causes of action.  “Virtually any law can serve as the predicate for a section 17200 action.”  Klein v. Earth Elements, Inc. (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4^th 965, 969.  As to injury, a plaintiff may demonstrate standing under Bus. & Prof. Code §17204 by showing diminishment of present or future property interest or deprivation of money or property to which plaintiff has a cognizable claim.  Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal. 4^th 310, 323.  Moreover, there are allegations as to each defendant; thus, the complaint is not so uncertain that defendants cannot reasonably respond.

Defendant Ford is ordered to give notice of ruling.