Judge Joel R Wohlfeil, Case Number: 37-2024-00002819-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2024-00002819-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 12, 2024

06/14/2024 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 Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2024-00002819-CU-BC-CTL SANDOVAL VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Strike, 04/02/2024

1. The special and general Demurrer (ROA # 14, 25) of Defendant Ford Motor Company ('Defendant' or 'FMC') to the Third Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment and the Sixth Cause of Action for Violation of Civil Code section 1750 et seq. in the First Amended Complaint ('FAC') by Plaintiff JORGE SANDOVAL ('Plaintiff'), is OVERRULED.

Defendant's Request (ROA # 15) for judicial notice is DENIED.

The special Demurrer is overruled because the challenged causes of action are not fatally ambiguous or unintelligible. Code Civ. Proc. 430.10(f). Any ambiguities can be clarified through the process of pre-trial discovery.

The ruling on the general Demurrer is based on the analysis set forth below.

Fraud must be pled specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice. Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 631, 645.

This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which show how, when, where, to whom and by what means the representations were tendered. Id. Plaintiff's burden in asserting a fraud claim against a corporate employer is even greater. Id. In such a case, Plaintiff must allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written. Id. Less specificity is required when it appears from the nature of the allegations that Defendant must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy. Committee On Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal. 3d 197, 217.

Considerations of practicality enter into the analysis. Id. The Complaint should be kept to reasonable length. Id. 'A complaint which set out each advertisement verbatim, and specified the time, place, and medium, might seem to represent perfect compliance with the specificity requirement, but as a practical matter, it Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3117394 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: SANDOVAL VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY [IMAGED] 37-2024-00002819-CU-BC-CTL would provide less effective notice and be less useful in framing the issues than would a shorter, more generalized version.' Id. The rule of particularity when pleading fraud is intended to apply to affirmative misrepresentations.

Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1384.

It is harder to apply this rule to a case of simple nondisclosure. Id. There are four circumstances in which nondisclosure or concealment may constitute actionable fraud: (1) when Defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff; (2) when Defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to Plaintiff; (3) when Defendant actively conceals a material fact from Plaintiff; and (4) when Defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses some material facts. LiMandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 326, 336.

The latter three circumstances in which nondisclosure may be actionable presupposes the existence of some type of relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant in which a duty to disclose can arise. Id. at 336, 337.

As a matter of common sense, such a relationship can only come into being as a result of some sort of transaction between the parties. Id. at 337.

A duty to disclose may arise from the relationship between seller and buyer, employer and prospective employee, doctor and patient, or parties entering into any kind of contractual agreement. Id. The FAC alleges the existence of a transactional relationship. It alleges Plaintiff purchased the vehicle from an authorized Ford dealership (�� 30 and 79), Plaintiff and Ford entered into an express warranty contract (�� 7 - 8), and the dealership was Ford's agent for purposes of the sale of Ford vehicles to consumers (�� 41, 79 and 80).

Although review of Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal. App. 5th 828 has been granted (see Dhital v. Nissan North America (Cal. 2023) 304 Cal. Rptr. 3d 82, 523 P. 3d 392), it is still persuasive authority. See California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(e)(1).

Dhital expressly holds that this transactional relationship could exist.

The FAC alleges sufficient facts regarding a duty to disclose.

Sufficiently detailed facts are alleged supporting a claim for fraudulent concealment. Sufficient facts are alleged regarding what was concealed, why it was concealed and how it was concealed. Facts are alleged demonstrating Defendant's exclusive knowledge of material facts (defective transmission) and active concealment. FAC at �� 38 and 40 - 62.

The moving brief argues that 'no direct communication between Plaintiff and Ford whatsoever, much less relative to the purchase of the Subject Vehicle' have been alleged. However, this is a claim for the concealment of material facts, not the representation of false facts.

Finally, damages supporting both causes of action are alleged in sufficient detail. See FAC at �� 5, 69, 71, 72, 95, 96, 97, 115 and 156. Generally, diminution in value is alleged, as well as consequential damages. The sixth cause of action alleges a claim for injunctive such that this cause of action survives even in the absence of a claim for damages. FAC at �� 151 - 154.

_____ Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3117394 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: SANDOVAL VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY [IMAGED] 37-2024-00002819-CU-BC-CTL 2. Defendant's Motion (ROA # 13, 25) to strike portions of Plaintiff's FAC, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

The Court strikes the punitive damage allegations set forth within the notice of this Motion at page 4, line 7 through page 5, line 1. This Motion is denied with respect to the remainder of the disputed allegations.

Plaintiff is permitted leave to file and serve a Second Amended Complaint addressing the punitive damages deficiency within twenty (20) days of this hearing.

This ruling is based on the analysis set forth below.

Defendant's Request (ROA # 15) for judicial notice is DENIED.

Purported Non-Material Allegations The Court is empowered to '[s]trike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.' Code Civ. Proc. 436(a).

An 'irrelevant' or 'immaterial' allegation includes an allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim, or not pertinent to a claim. Code Civ. Proc. 431.10.

The referenced technical service bulletins and consumer complaints could be potentially relevant to prove Defendant's knowledge and concealment of a material defect with the transmission. Relevance and materiality are issues of fact that cannot be addressed via this Motion directed at the pleading.

Punitive Damages As discussed within the concurrent ruling overruling the Demurrer, the claim for fraudulent concealment is sufficiently pled. A properly pled fraud claim will itself support recovery of punitive damages. No allegations of 'malice' or intent to injure Plaintiff are required because fraud is an alternative and independent basis for recovery. See Civ. Code 3294(a); Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal. App. 3d 605, 610; and Las Palmas Associates v. Las Palmas Center Associates (1991) 235 Cal. App. 3d 1220, 1239.

The facts and circumstances supporting the claim for punitive damages are sufficiently alleged.

'An employer shall not be liable for [punitive] damages ... based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.' Civ. Code 3294(b).

Punitive damages are not assessed against employers on a pure respondeat superior basis. College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 704, 724, fn. 11.

Exemplary damages may be assessed directly against a principal only under specific statutory authority and in delineated circumstances. Rony v. Costa (2012) 210 Cal. App. 4th 746, 759.

Punitive damages liability requires that the wrongful act giving rise to the exemplary damages be committed by an 'officer, director, or managing agent.' White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 563, 572.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3117394 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: SANDOVAL VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY [IMAGED] 37-2024-00002819-CU-BC-CTL The opposition brief does not address corporate authorization or ratification, and does not cite to allegations in the FAC that address this issue. The FAC alleges facts tracing Ford's knowledge of the transmission defect, how it obtained this knowledge and its conscious decision not to inform the public.

Arguably, these allegations demonstrate company-wide decision making that could only have been authorized or ratified by an officer, director or managing agent. However, in the absence of express allegations or meaningful opposition, this aspect of the Motion will be granted with leave to amend.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3117394