Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV00437, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00437    Hearing Date: March 16, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE DEMURRER, MOTION TO STRIKE

            On January 1, 2023, Plaintiffs Samson Bareh and Gen Bareh (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action alleging causes of action Samson Bareh was injured by exposure to asbestos Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Defendant”) filed a demurrer to the third cause of action for fraud and a motion to strike.  The third cause of action alleges Defendant knew about the danger of asbestos in the vehicles it sold but did not give warnings to customers such as Samson Bareh, and Samson Bareh purchased Defendant’s products, did not know about the concealed information, and if he had known about the information, he would have acted differently.  (Complaint at pp. 30-36, 82.)

            The request for judicial notice is denied.  If Defendant wants the court to consider the substance of Plaintiffs’ discovery responses, it needs to file a motion for summary adjudication.

I.          Demurrer

Defendant argues the third cause of action alleges only misrepresentations to people other than Samson Bareh.  (Motion at p. 10.)  However, the third cause of action alleges Defendant concealed information from Samson Bareh about the hazards of the asbestos in its products.  (Complaint at pp. 30-36, 82.)

Defendant argues the complaint does not allege a relationship between Defendant and Samson Bareh.  (Motion at p. 8.)  However, at page 36, the complaint alleges Samson Bareh purchased Defendant’s products.

Defendant argues the complaint does not specify the concealed information.  (Motion at p. 11.)  The complaint alleges Defendant concealed information that asbestos in its vehicles was hazardous.  (Complaint at p. 36.)

Defendant argues the complaint does not allege the basis for any duty.  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.) 

Here, the complaint alleges Samson Bareh was a buyer of Defendant’s products.  (Complaint at p. 36.) It 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. 30-36.)  Therefore, less specificity is required.  The complaint alleges the toxic nature of the products – that they contained asbestos (Complaint at p. 32-33) – and identified the particular products –brakes and clutches in Defendant’s vehicles.  (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 adequate notice that Plaintiffs are complaining about Defendant’s alleged concealment of information about hazardous asbestos-containing brakes and clutches in Mercedes vehicles.

            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 attended 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 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.

II.        Motion to Strike

            Defendant seeks to strike the third cause of action for fraud and request for punitive damages.  The arguments repeat those discussed above, and are denied for the reasons discussed above.

            In addition, Defendant moves to strike a citation to a case.  Striking a case citation in a complaint in no way advances the resolution of the claims against Defendant.  Allowing motions to strike particular lines in a complaint will make managing these coordinating proceedings impossible as the court will spend all of its time deciding motions to strike and re-writing complaints.

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

The moving party is to give notice.