Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV02348, Date: 2024-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV02348    Hearing Date: February 1, 2024    Dept: F49

Dept. F49

Date: 2-1-24

Case # 23CHCV02348

Trial Date: N/A

DEMURRER

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ford Motor Company

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff William Holmquist

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer to the Complaint

·         3^rd Cause of Action: Violation of Subdivision (A)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2

·         5^th Cause of Action: Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On July 15, 2019, Plaintiff William Holmquist (Plaintiff) purchased a 2019 Ford F-150. (Comp., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff received various warranties in connection with the purchase of the vehicle from Defendant Ford Motor Company (Defendant). (Comp., ¶¶ 9-10.) Plaintiff alleges that there were transmission defects, electrical defects, and other non-conformities with the vehicle. (Comp., ¶ 14.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knew of the vehicle’s defects prior to Plaintiff purchasing the vehicle. (Comp., ¶ 26.) Plaintiff alleges that the Transmission Defect makes the vehicle unsafe. (Comp., ¶ 35.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant issued several service bulletins related to the Transmission Defect. (Comp., ¶ 27.)

On August 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed his complaint with six causes of action.

Defendant filed its demurer on October 9, 2023. Plaintiff filed his opposition on January 19, 2024. Defendant filed its reply on January 25, 2024.

RULING

Demurrer: Sustained with leave to amend.

Defendant brings a demurrer to the Third Cause of Action for Violation of Subdivision (A)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2. Defendant argues that this cause of action fails to state sufficient facts alleging a failure to provide sufficient service literature and replacement parts. Defendant also brings a demurrer for the Fifth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment. Defendant contends the challenged cause of action fails to state sufficient facts alleging fraud.

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (CCP § 430.30(a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (CCP § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law…” ’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

For the Third Cause of Action, in cases where statutory remedies are invoked, “[f]acts, not conclusions, must be pleaded,” and the facts “must be pleaded with particularity.” (Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 410.) The section at issue in this cause of action requires a manufacturer to “[m]ake available to authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period.” (Civ. Code § 1793.2(a)(3).)

Plaintiff’s Third Causes of Action does not plead any facts that would indicate that Ford failed to provide sufficient service literature and replacement parts to its authorized repair facilities. Instead, Plaintiff just recites the statutory language verbatim in his complaint. (Comp., ¶ 49.) This does not meet the pleading standard requiring that facts be pleaded with particularly. Plaintiff argues in his opposition that inferences may be drawn from what he has pled, but he has not pled any facts from which inferences may be drawn. He has only pled a recitation of the statute.

In his opposition, Plaintiff argues that because he included references to technical service bulletins in his complaint (Comp., ¶¶ 28-34), then inferences can be drawn from these bulletins that the literature and/or replacement parts would have been insufficient because the repair facility was unable to fix Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant correctly argues in its reply that no inferences about the sufficiency of literature and/or replacement parts can be drawn from these bulletins. Regardless, specificity is required in pleadings. Plaintiff’s pleadings are not sufficient as to what literature or part Defendant failed to provide. Plaintiff cannot maintain this cause of action.

For the Fifth Cause of Action, a fraud cause of action requires a Plaintiff to plead and prove: “(a) [a] misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or “scienter”); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal 4th 631, 638.) Fraud causes of action must be pled with specificity. “…This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which ‘show how, when, where, to whom and by what means the representations were tendered.’” (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73, quoting Hills Trans. Co. v. Southwest (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 702, 707.)

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendant allowed the vehicle to be sold without disclosing the transmission defect. However, his complaint does not allege that any specific misrepresentations were made to him about the transmission. (Comp., ¶¶ 58-65.)

Plaintiff’s allegations are not enough to satisfy the pleading requirements for fraud. While Plaintiff alleges that the transmission defect was not disclosed to him, he does not plead any facts indicating he spoke with anyone from Ford Motor Company about the transmission. He also has not pled whether there was any intent to defraud him.

Plaintiff has failed to plead the requisite specificity required for fraud causes of action. He has not pled how, when, where, and by what means the alleged misrepresentations (or nondisclosures, in this case) were tendered. Without the specific details regarding the misrepresentations and/or nondisclosure, Plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action for fraud.

Defendant also argues that there is no transactional or fiduciary relationship between it and Plaintiff. Without such a relationship, there can be no cause of action for inducement. (See LiMandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 326.) The Court agrees. Plaintiff has not pled that there was any transactional relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant.

The Court finds the demurrer presents sufficient argument establishing grounds to sustain the demurrer to the two causes of action. The demurrer to Plaintiff’s Third and Fifth Causes of Action is sustained with 30 days leave to amend.

Moving party to give notice.