Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV00437, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00437    Hearing Date: March 15, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE DEMURRER

            On January 1, 2023, Plaintiffs Samson Bareh and Gen Bareh (“Plaintiffs”) filed this case alleging Samson Bareh was injured by exposure to asbestos.  On February 2, 2023, Defendant Honeywell International, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed a demurrer to the third cause of action.  That cause of action alleges Defendant knew about the danger of asbestos in its brakes but did not give warnings to customers purchasing the products such as Samson Bareh, Defendant marketed its brakes as safe and published various advertisements saying they were safe, and Samson Bareh purchased Defendant’s products, did not know about the concealed information, and relied on the misrepresentations.  (Complaint at pp. 16-21, 80-81.)

Defendant argues the third cause of action does not specify the alleged misrepresentations.  (Motion at pp. 2, 7-8.)  At pages 17-19, the complaint describes specific advertisements in which Defendant allegedly made false or misleading statements.  Defendant also argues the advertisements were not false, and the complaint does not allege they are false or explain how they are misleading.  (Motion at pp. 5, 14.)  The complaint alleges the advertisements intentionally created the impression the products were safe, when Defendant knew they were not and did not disclose in information that the products were not safe.  (Complaint at pp. 17, 19.)

Defendant argues the complaint does not allege a relationship between Defendant and Samson Bareh.  (Motion at p. 4.)  However, at page 21, the complaint alleges Samson Bareh purchased Defendant’s products.

Defendant argues its statements to OSHA are privileged.  (Motion at p. 7.)  Whether or not that is correct, the allegations about OSHA are only a small part of the fraud cause of action.  A demurrer cannot be used to strike parts of a complaint that do not compromise an entire cause of action.

Defendant argues the complaint does not specify the concealed information.  The complaint alleges Defendant concealed information that the asbestos dust from brakes repairs was hazardous.  (Complaint at pp. 16-17.)

Defendant argues the complaint does not allege the basis for any duty.  (Motion at p. 10.)  Defendant cites Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Com. v. Insomniac, Inc. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 803.  That case states “a duty to disclose may arise from the relationship between seller and buyer.”  (Id. at p. 831.)  The complaint alleges Samson Bareh was a buyer of Defendant’s products.  (Complaint at p. 20.) 

In Committee On Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, the California Supreme Court explained, “Less specificity is required when ‘it appears from the nature of the allegations that the defendant must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy . . . .”  (Id. at p. 217.)  Also, “considerations of practicality enter in” especially when multiple parties are involved.  (Ibid.; Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement Sys. & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384.)  A duty to disclose can arise “when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff,” when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff,” or “when the defendant makes partial misrepresentations but also suppresses some material facts.”  (LiMandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 326, 336.)  When a complaint alleges the defendants were aware of the toxic nature of their particular products and owed a duty to disclose the toxic properties of their products to the plaintiff because they alone had knowledge of material facts which were not available to the plaintiff, this is sufficient to provide adequate notice of the material facts the defendants allegedly concealed regarding the particular products at issue.  (Jones v. ConocoPhillips Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1200.) 

Defendant argues the complaint does not allege how and why Samson Bareh relied on any misrepresentations.  The complaint alleges Defendant knew better than Samson Bareh what information it had, what information it disclosed, and what information it withheld about the dangers of asbestos.  (Complaint at pp. 15-17.)  Therefore, less specificity is required.  The complaint alleges the toxic nature of the products – that they contained asbestos (Complaint at p. 12) – and identified the particular products – Bendix brakes.  (Ibid.)  The complaint alleges the decedent relied upon the lack of warnings.  (Complaint at pp. 80-81.)  “Although sparse, northing more is required at this early stage of the litigation.”  (Jones, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 1200.)  The complaint gives Defendant notice that Plaintiffs are complaining about Defendant’s alleged concealment of information about its hazardous asbestos-containing brakes.

            While the complaint is not a model pleading, multiple rounds of demurrers and motions to strike by the nineteen defendants currently named in this action, with the attendant amended pleadings, would make these coordinated proceedings unmanageable.  As in Committee On Children’s Television, considerations of practicality enter in.  Perfecting complaints through dozens of demurrers and motions to strike, along with rounds of pleadings would take months or years, dramatically increase the cost of litigating these cases, overwhelm the court’s calendar, greatly extend the time for hearings on all sorts of motions including summary judgment motions, and significantly lengthen the time to trial.  That is not practical.  This is especially true because the first and second causes of action are not the subject of the demurrer.  Therefore, the parties will need to engage in discovery, brief summary judgment motions, and go to trial or settle regardless of the outcome of this demurrer.  To the extent the complaint could be more detailed, the parties can flesh out the evidence in discovery.  Then, if Defendant believes Plaintiffs’ fraud claims remain unsupported by the evidence, Defendant can file a motion for summary adjudication.

The demurrer is OVERRULED.  Defendant is to file an answer within 10 days.

The moving party is to give notice.