Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STCV45561, Date: 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45561    Hearing Date: August 10, 2022    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

            Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint

I.                   Demurrer

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. demurs to plaintiff Rolando Mendoza Garcia’s fifth cause of action for “fraudulent inducement – concealment.”  This cause of action requires: (1) defendant omitted, concealed, or suppressed a material fact; (2) defendant had a duty to disclose the fact to plaintiff; (3) defendant intentionally omitted or concealed the fact with intent to defraud plaintiff; (4) plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would have acted otherwise if he had known of the concealed fact; and (5) the omission caused damages.  (Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 248.)  A cause of action for fraud requires specifically pleading each element.  (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384.)

            Plaintiff fails to specifically allege facts for the final element: that his reliance on any concealment caused damages.  A plaintiff must “allege specific facts not only showing he or she actually and justifiably relied on the defendant’s misrepresentations, but also how the actions he or she took in reliance on the defendant’s misrepresentations caused the alleged damages.”  (Rossberg v. Bank of America, N.A. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1499.) 

Plaintiff alleges defendant concealed one defect: the “infotainment system defect” affecting the entire class of 2018-2019 Honda Odyssey vehicles.  (FAC, ¶¶ 51-90.)  Defendant’s alleged concealment of a defect in the infotainment system can only cause plaintiff damages if that defect is present in his vehicle and it harmed him.  Plaintiff does not specifically allege that. 

As alleged, the “Infotainment System Defect” constitutes a propensity for many vehicle features to fail.  (FAC, ¶¶ 53-55.)  The first amended complaint alleges, “2018-2019 Honda Odyssey vehicles… contain a defect that causes many of the Vehicles’ features associated with the infotainment system… to malfunction.”  (Id., ¶ 53.)  “As a result of the defect, Honda Vehicles’ infotainment systems frequently freeze or crash.”  (Id., ¶ 54.)  “The defect can also render safety-related systems (including backup camera functions) to fail.”  (Ibid.)  “[T]he infotainment system may fail at any time.”  (¶ 55.)  That is not a defect; it is a universal truth about any machine.  

Regarding his 2019 Honda Odyssey, plaintiff Rolando Mendoza Garcia alleges he “is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that [his] Vehicle contained, among other defects, Infotainment System Defect [sic].”  (FAC, ¶ 17.)  He further alleges, “Defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period, including but not limited to, the electrical, transmission, and engine systems, among other defects and non-conformities.  Said defects/nonconformities substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the Vehicle.”  (Id., ¶¶ 21-22.) 

These allegations are not sufficient for fraud, which must be specifically pleaded.  The first amended complaint makes only vague allegations that plaintiff’s vehicle “contained” the infotainment system defect.  A specific allegation would be, for example, that plaintiff’s vehicle’s infotainment system does not display the view from the backup camera.  Plaintiff does not allege that his vehicle’s infotainment system frequently freezes or has anything wrong with it other than the generic propensity to fail.      

Defendant’s demurrer to the fifth cause of action is sustained with 15 days’ leave to amend.  

II.                Motion to Strike

Defendants move to strike several portions of the first amended complaint.  Courts may strike “any irrelevant, false, or improper matter” (CCP § 436(a)) including allegations that are “not essential to the statement of a claim or defense,” “neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense,” or “[a] demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations” (CCP § 431.10(b)).

A. Allegations in Another Lawsuit Filed After Plaintiff Purchased His Vehicle

Defendant moves to strike page 2, lines 6-8 (¶ 8), footnote 5, and exhibit B as irrelevant, false, or improper.  Paragraph 8 includes allegations describing class action tolling based on a federal class action lawsuit.  Footnote 5 alleges the defect in plaintiff’s vehicle “is very similar” to that alleged in a second federal class action.  Exhibit B is the second amended class action complaint in that lawsuit.  These allegations are irrelevant and improper. 

B.    Allegations Relevant to Fraud

Defendant moves to strike several allegations only relevant to the fifth cause of action for fraudulent inducement.  Because the court sustained the demurrer to the fifth cause of action, these allegations are not essential, pertinent, or supported by any claim in the first amended complaint.  Page 16, lines 6-8 (¶ 73), footnote 13, and exhibit C concern defendant’s knowledge of defects, which is only relevant to its duty to disclose for fraudulent concealment.  Footnotes 15 and 16 and paragraphs 77 and 87 refer to legal standards for concealment.  The challenged portions of paragraphs 86 and 86(c) allege defendant owed a duty to disclose.  These allegations only pertain to the fifth cause of action and are therefore irrelevant.

C.    Punitive Damages

Finally, defendant moves to strike plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages.  (Prayer, ¶ (i).)  Recovery of punitive damages relies on plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for fraud.  As discussed above, the court finds that the first amended complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to constitute fraud.  Punitive damages are therefore not available.

D.    Disposition

Defendant’s motion to strike is granted with 15 days’ leave to amend.  The court hereby strikes the following portions of the first amended complaint:

1.      Paragraph 8, page 2, lines 6-8: “and/or class action tolling (e.g., the American Pipe rule), by the filing of Conti v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc, et al. (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:19-cv-2160) on March 22, 2019”;

2.      Footnote 5 and Exhibit B;

3.      Paragraph 73, page 16, lines 6-8: “Upon information and belief, such conspicuous TSB, or absence thereof, evidences Defendant's knowledge of widespread Infotainment System Defect within Honda Vehicles”;

4.      Footnote 13 and Exhibit C;

5.      Paragraph 77, page 17, lines 11-12: “Therefore, Plaintiff did not discover and could not have discovered this defect through reasonable diligence”;

6.      Paragraph 86, page 19, lines 18-19: “Honda was under a duty to Plaintiff to disclose the defective nature of the Vehicle and its infotainment system, its safety consequences and/or the associated repair costs”;

7.      Paragraph 86(c);

8.      Paragraph 87;

9.      Footnote 15, page 21, lines 13-16: “Under California law, [a]n omission is material if a reasonable consumer would attach importance to its existence or nonexistence in determining his choice of action in the transaction in question.’ Daniel v. Ford Motor Co., 806 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting another source).  If an omission is material, the court can infer reliance and causation (i.e., that one would have behaved differently). Id.; In re Vioxx Class Cases, 180 Cal. App. 4th 116, 129 (2009)”;

10. Footnote 16, page 21, lines 22-24: “The ‘Plaintiffs need not prove that the omission was the only cause or even the predominant cause, only that it was a substantial factor in his decision.’ Id. The ‘Plaintiffs may do so by simply proving that, had the omitted information been disclosed, one would have been aware of it and behaved differently.’ Id.”; and

11. Prayer, paragraph (i), page 22, line 9.