Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCV24978, Date: 2025-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV24978    Hearing Date: January 13, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED, WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND.

Defendant’s motion to strike is MOOT.

            On 9/26/2024, Plaintiffs Monica E. Reyes and Gloria A. Cadavid (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against American Honda Motor Co. (Defendant), alleging violation of the Song-Beverly Act.

            On 12/2/2024, Defendant demurred to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendant also moved to strike portions of Defendant’s Complaint.

Discussion

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred by the statute of limitations, and fails to state a claim because Plaintiff’s allegations violate the economic loss doctrine.

            Plaintiffs’ claims are each brought under the Song-Beverly Act and carry a four-year statute of limitations. (Cal. Com. Code § 2725(2).) A cause of action under Song-Beverly “accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party’s lack of knowledge of the breach.” (Id.) The “breach” occurs “when tender of delivery” is made. (Id.)

Thus, absent sufficient facts in the Complaint supportive of an alternative accrual date or tolling doctrine, Plaintiffs’ claims all began to run when AHM’s alleged breach occurred - on the date the subject vehicle was delivered to Plaintiffs on January 7, 2020. See Czajkowski v. Haskell & White, LLP (2012) 208 Cal. App. 4th 166, 174-175, citing E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1319, (finding that a complaint reflecting that a claim is barred absent application of the discovery rule must plead facts to show the time and manner of discovery, plaintiff’s reasonable diligence, and plaintiff’s inability to have discovered the relevant facts earlier).

Plaintiff will be afforded leave to amend in order to show that she can allege facts which could show that the statute of limitations has not run.

As for the concealment claim, Defendant additionally argues that it is barred by the economic loss rule because Plaintiff’s damages are limited to economic loss. “As our Supreme Court has explained, although that fraudulent intent is often established by circumstantial evidence, “ ‘something more than nonperformance is required to prove the defendant’s intent not to perform his promise.’ [Citations.]”) (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988, 993.)

            Here, Plaintiff’s claim is not based solely on a failure to perform. Rather, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knew that the specific transmission installed in the vehicle was defective and did not disclose this fact. The California Supreme Court in Robinson expressly permitted fraud claims to proceed in contract actions to “a defendant’s affirmative misrepresentations on which a plaintiffs rely, and which expose a defendant to liability for personal damages independent of the Plaintiffs’ economic loss.” (Id. at p. 993.) While Plaintiff’s claim is here is based on concealment, rather than misrepresentation, there is no reason to believe that an individual can be held liable for fraud if they vocalize their deception, but not if they withhold material information as part of that deception.

            While Defendant may dispute whether or not Plaintiff can actually show that Defendant knowingly concealed a defective transmission, and while this may be Plaintiff transforming a run-of-the-mill Song Beverly claim into a fraud claim, this will require factual determinations not properly made at this stage.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer is sustained, with 20 days leave to amend, so that Plaintiffs can allege facts which could show that this action is not time-barred. As a result, Defendant’s motion to strike is moot.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2025

   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.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.