Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2023-00038895-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-06-27 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 24, 2024

06/27/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00038895-CU-BC-CTL MUNOZ-MARTINEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 05/03/2024

1. The Demurrer (ROA # 57, 62) of General Motors LLC ('Defendant' or 'GM') for an order to the fifth cause of action for fraudulent inducement - concealment in the First Amended Complaint ('FAC') by Plaintiffs JOSE AMAURY MUNOZ MARTINEZ AND BERTHA A. MUNOZ ('Plaintiffs'), is OVERRULED.

Defendant contends that this claim fails because it is time-barred. More specifically, Defendant's claim that Plaintiffs should have brought this action no later than December 21, 2020, since the applicable limitations period is 3 years (Code Civ. Proc. 338(d)) and Plaintiffs purchased the subject vehicle on December 21, 2017. (FAC, ¶9.) However, the FAC alleged the applicability of several tolling doctrines e.g., discovery rule, repair rule, equitable estoppel and alleged facts to support the application of these doctrines. More specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant knew about the defective nature of the transmission of the subject vehicle prior to it being sold to Plaintiffs and hid that fact. (FAC, ¶¶39 - 41, 43 - 48.) In addition, Plaintiffs allege that they took the subject vehicle in for repairs several times and were assured that the transmission issue had been repaired only to later discover that the problem persisted.

(FAC, pp. 5 - 6.) Finally, [r]esolution of the statute of limitations is normally a question of fact.' (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 797, 810.) Under the pleaded facts and the applicable law, the Court finds that this claim is not time-barred.

Defendant contends that the claim fails due to lack of specificity. However, the court in Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal. App. 5th 828, 843, 844 (hereafter Dhital), held very similar allegations to be sufficient. Although the Court is aware that review has been granted re Dhital, the request for an order directing de-publication was denied. Thus, it 'may be cited for persuasive value only.' (CRC rule 8.1115(e)(1).) The Court finds the reasoning in Dhital convincingly persuasive.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs did not allege a transactional relationship between the parties which gave rise to a duty to disclose. Notably, this argument was rejected by the court in Dhital at page 844.

Like Plaintiffs in Dhital, Plaintiffs alleged that they bought the car from an authorized dealer of Defendant. (FAC, ¶6.) This is sufficient.

The Court in Dhital held at pages 843, 844, under similar facts, that the economic loss rule does not bar a Plaintiff's claim for fraudulent inducement by concealment. Again, the Court finds the reasoning in that case convincingly persuasive.

_____ Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3127079 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  MUNOZ-MARTINEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00038895-CU-BC-CTL 2. Defendant's Motion (ROA # 58, 62) to strike portions of Plaintiffs' FAC, is DENIED.

Where, as here, there is a properly pled fraud claim, such claim supports the recovery of punitive damages. No allegations of 'malice' or intent to injure Plaintiff are required since fraud is an alternative and independent basis for recovery. (See Civ. Code 3294(a); Stevens v. Super. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal. App. 3d 605, 610.) Defendant contends that Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to support a request for punitive damages as against a corporate employer. However, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant's President, Johan de Nysschen, was aware of the defective transmission issue in 2016 but that Defendant continued to conceal the issue 'from consumers, including its marketing materials, and advised any complaining customers that poor shifts were 'normal.'' (FAC, ¶43.) Defendant is directed to file its Answer by July 12, 2024.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3127079