Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

FELIX RIVERA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. Case No.: 24STCV04438

DEFENDANT AUTONATION FORD TORRANCE’S DEMURRER

Defendant Autonation’s demurrer is SUSTAINED.

The parties should be prepared to discuss the issue of leave to amend.

Moving party to provide notice.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for violations of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act and fraudulent inducement through concealment. Plaintiffs alleges that they purchased a 2017 Ford F150 in June 2017. The vehicle arrived with defects that Defendants failed to repair despite a reasonable number of opportunities. Plaintiffs allege that as early Defendants knew about a transmission defect in the Ford F150 vehicles and failed to disclose the defect when they sold the vehicle to Plaintiffs.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On February 22, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendants Ford Motor Company (Ford) and Autonation Ford Torrance (Autonation). 

On March 25, 2024, Defendant Autonation filed this demurrer.

On June 11, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition.

On June 17, 2024, Autonation filed a reply.

DISCUSSION 

Defendant Autonation demurs to the fifth cause of action for negligent repair on the grounds that (1) the cause of action is barred under the economic loss rule and (2) the Complaint fails to plead damages.

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “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. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70.) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) A “demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction of instruments pleaded, or facts impossible in law.” (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 (internal citations omitted).)

Meet and Confer

A party filing a demurrer “shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., section 430.41(a).) “The parties shall meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. If the parties are not able to meet and confer at least five days prior to the date the responsive pleading is due, the demurring party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a responsive pleading, by filing and serving, on or before the date on which a demurrer would be due, a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties could not meet and confer.” (Code Civ. Proc., section 430.41(a)(2).) A failure to meet and confer does not constitute grounds to sustain or overrule a demurrer. (See Code Civ. Proc., sections 430.41 (a)(4).)

Here, Autonation’s counsel testifies that he met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel and the parties could not resolve their dispute over the Complaint. (Liu Decl., ¶3.) Autonation satisfies meet and confer requirements.

Fifth cause of action – Negligent Repair

Damages

Autonation argues that Complaint fails to plead the element of damages. Specifically, it alleges the Complaint does not allege Plaintiffs paid out of pocket for repairs.

The elements of a negligence cause of action are duty, breach, causation and damages.  (Cnty v. Santa Clara v. Atl. Ritchfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.) 

Here, the Complaint states Autonation’s breached its duty to use ordinary care in storing, preparing, and repairing the subject vehicle according to industry standards causing Plaintiffs to suffer undisclosed damages. (Compl., ¶72.) The Complaint does not allege that Plaintiffs paid for the repair or repairs performed. Plaintiffs fails to allege how they were damaged due to the allegedly negligent repair or repairs. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead the element of damages. 

Plaintiffs argue that Autonation is contesting their ability to prove damage, a determination which is not appropriate for a demurrer. However, the Complaint contains no allegations about how the alleged negligent repair specifically caused Plaintiffs’ alleged damages. Although the Complaint alleges the subject vehicle is defective, there are no allegations that the defects were caused by the alleged negligent repair work.

The demurrer is sustained on this ground.

Economic Loss Rule

The Court is unable to analyze this grounds for the demurrer.

The Court cannot tell when the alleged repair or repairs at issue occurred, including whether the repairs occurred within or outside the warranty period.

The Court cannot tell whether there was a contract between Plaintiff and Antonation governing the repair or repairs at issue.

To the extent leave to amend is granted, Plaintiff must amend the complaint to address these deficiencies as they are important to any analysis of the economic loss doctrine in this context. 

Plaintiff must list the repair or repairs at issue by date and must allege for each repair whether or not there was a contractual relationship between Plaintiff and Antonation at that time and the basis for that contractual relationship if one is alleged. 

 Leave to Amend

The burden is on Plaintiffs to show in what manner the complaint may be amended and how the amendment would change the legal effect of the pleading. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335.) Here, Plaintiffs failed to explain in their opposition how the Complaint may be amended..

DATED: June 26, 2024

__________________________

Hon. Jill Feeney 

Judge of the Superior Court