Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV32316, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32316    Hearing Date: December 12, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED, with 15 days leave to amend.

            Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to strike is MOOT.

            On 10/3/2022, Plaintiffs Sandra K. Toring and Harold H. Toring (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Subaru of America, Inc. alleging: (1) breach of express warranty; (2) breach of implied warranty; (3) breach of express warranty; (4) violation of the Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (5) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

            Now, Defendants demur to Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action. Defendants also move to strike portion of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

Discussion

            Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action is uncertain and lacks the requisite specificity. More specifically, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs do not allege the specific misrepresentations they relied upon, nor do they allege how they actually relied upon these alleged misrepresentations, omissions, or advertisements and suffered resulting damages. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs have not alleged facts which could show that Defendant engaged in unlawful or unfair conduct.

            As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Defendant’s arguments as to the unfair conduct balancing test are not properly considered at the demurrer stage. Given that the Court must accept well-pled allegations as true at the pleading stage, the Court cannot engage in an evaluation of the alleged practice’s "impact on its alleged victim, balanced against the reasons, justifications, and motives of the alleged wrongdoer" to determine whether the alleged practice is "unfai within the meaning of the Unfair Competition Laws. (Bardin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1263.)

            Second, Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendant has violated several provisions of Song-Beverly is sufficient to show that Defendant violated another law. “Song-Beverly specifically states that its remedies "are cumulative and shall not be construed as restricting any remedy that is otherwise available . . ." (Civ. Code, § 1790.4.)” (Craig Clark v. BMW of North America, LLC (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2014). B248593, at *15.)

However, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs have not alleged fraudulent conduct with the requisite specificity. Plaintiffs allege that “DEFENDANT’S oral misrepresentations also deceived PLAINTIFFS to believe that PLAINTIFFS would receive a benefit by purchasing a Vehicle from them under warranty” but does not specific the content of those misrepresentations, when they were made, or by whom. (Complaint ¶ 58.) Fraud must be plead with specificity rather than with “general and conclusory allegations.” (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 184.) The specificity requirement means a plaintiff must allege facts showing how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were made, and, in the case of a corporate defendant, the plaintiff must allege the names of the persons who made the representations, their authority to speak on behalf of the corporation, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when the representation was made. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.)” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 793.) Plaintiffs must allege facts with this specificity. 

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer to the fifth cause of action is sustained, with 15 days leave to amend.

Motion to Strike

            Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have not pled sufficient facts to support a prayer for punitive damages. In light of the Court’s ruling sustaining Defendant’s demurrer, with leave to amend, Defendant’s motion to strike is moot. 

It is so ordered.

Dated:  December    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.