Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 24STCV34509, Date: 2025-06-18 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: June 18, 2025

Case Name: Grantt v. JLRNA, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 24STCV26549

Matter: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Moving Party: Defendants Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC and Jaguar Land

Rover Los Angeles 

Responding Party: Plaintiff Mark Grantt

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect.  If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

This is a lemon law matter.  

Defendants Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC and Jaguar Land Rover Los Angeles now seek judgment on the pleadings.

“A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to state a cause of action against that defendant. A motion for judgment on the pleadings ‘is equivalent to a demurrer . . . .’ Leave to amend ‘is properly denied if the facts and nature of plaintiffs’ claims are clear and under the substantive law, no liability exists.’ ”  (Templo v. State¿(2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 730, 735.)  

“The required elements for fraudulent concealment are (1) concealment or suppression of a material fact; (2) by a defendant with a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff; (3) the defendant intended to defraud the plaintiff by intentionally concealing or suppressing the fact; (4) the plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he or she did if he or she had known of the concealed or suppressed fact; and (5) plaintiff sustained damage as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact. [Citation.]”  (Graham v. Bank of America, N.A. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 594, 606.)

There are “four circumstances in which nondisclosure or concealment may constitute actionable fraud: (1) when the defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff; (2) when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff; (3) when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff; and (4) when the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses some material facts.”  (Heliotis v. Schuman (1986) 181 Cal. App. 3d 646, 651.)  

There is a transactional relationship to the extent that Defendant issued a warranty.  (Dhital v. Nissan N. Am., Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828, 843-44)

Further, Plaintiff adequately pleads a duty to disclose by indicating Defendant’s exclusive knowledge of the subject defect.  (See, e.g., Compl.  ¶51.) 

Plaintiff’s claim is sufficiently pleaded to the extent specificity is somewhat relaxed for concealment claims.  (See Alfaro v. Community Housing Imp. System & Planning Ass’n., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384.)

Next, the economic loss rule does not apply here.  (See Dhital v. Nissan N. Am., Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828 [“[U]nder California law, the economic loss rule does not bar plaintiffs’ fraudulent inducement claim.”].)  Negligent repair is likewise unaffected by the economic loss rule due to a separate duty.

In sum, the Motion is denied.

Moving party to give notice.