Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 21STCV17564, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: May 17, 2023

Case Name: Gardner v. General Motors, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV11448 

Matter: Demurrer

Moving Party: Defendant General Motors, LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiff Gloria Gardner 

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Demurrer is overruled.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is a lemon law action.  On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff Gloria Gardner filed the operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) for (1) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and (2) fraud by omission.

Defendant General Motors, LLC demurs to Plaintiff’s fraud claim for failure to state sufficient facts.  Specifically, Defendant argues that this claim is barred by the statute of limitations and is otherwise insufficiently pleaded.  

When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context, and “treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)  “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. The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.”  (Hahn v. Mirda¿(2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)  It is error “to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if the plaintiff shows there is a reasonable possibility any defect identified by the defendant can be cured by amendment.”  (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist.¿(1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

The Court has already twice rejected Defendant’s argument based on the statute of limitations.  However, previously, the Court found that Plaintiff had failed to plead any facts to  establish a non-fiduciary duty to disclose for the purposes of a concealment claim.  The Court now reverses course, finding that the issuance of a warranty is sufficient to establish a transactional relationship giving rise to a duty to disclose.   (Dhital v. Nissan N. Am., Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828, 843-44.)  Further, the pleadings are adequate to the extent specificity is relaxed for concealment claims.  (See Alfaro v. Community Housing Imp. System & Planning Ass’n., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384.)

In sum, the Demurrer is overruled.  An answer is to be filed within twenty days.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.