Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2022-00039314-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 12, 2024

01/12/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00039314-CU-BC-CTL MCFADDEN VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Ford Motor Company's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted with leave to amend in part and granted without leave to amend in part.

Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings attacks all five causes of action. Plaintiff's first three causes of action are based upon breach of express warranty. Defendant asserts all three causes of action are barred by the statute of limitations (four years from the date of discovery). Plaintiff alleges he discovered Defendant's wrongful conduct 'shortly before the filing of the complaint.' As to these three causes of action, the motion is granted with leave to amend. To assess the validity of Defendant's defense, Plaintiff is required to more specifically allege when he purportedly discovered Defendant's wrongful conduct.

Regarding the fourth cause of action for implied warranty, the motion is granted without leave to amend.

The statute of limitations for implied warranty is four years. This cause of action accrues when the sale is made, not when it is allegedly discovered. Nguyen v. Nissan North America, Inc., (2020) 487 F. Supp.

845, 854 n. 3; Marchante v. Sony Corp. of America, Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2011) 801 F. Supp. 1013, 1022. The statute ran on December 4, 2021.

The motion concerning the fifth cause of action for fraud in the inducement is granted without leave to amend for two reasons. First, Plaintiff must plead a direct transactional relationship between the parties.

LiMandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 326, 327. According to the complaint, there is no direct transactional relationship between these parties. Second, this cause of action is barred by the economic loss rule. For a fraud claim to proceed in contract actions, Plaintiff must detail Defendant's affirmative misrepresentations on which Plaintiff relied which in turn exposed Plaintiff to liability for personal damages, independent of the Plaintiff's alleged economic loss. Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp., 34 Cal.4th 979 (2004). The court agrees with Defendant's analysis that numerous cases have followed the Robinson holding. The gravamen of this cause of action is one and the same as the breach of warranty claim-a purely contractual cause of action. Accordingly, it is barred by the economic loss rule.

Plaintiff is granted 25 days to amend the complaint.

Defendant El Cajon Ford's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is ordered off calendar. El Cajon Ford was dismissed from this case on February 14, 2023. (ROA 26.) Therefore, it is not a party to this lawsuit, and there are no causes of action against it to adjudicate.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2977693  18 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  MCFADDEN VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY [IMAGED]  37-2022-00039314-CU-BC-CTL The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2977693  18