Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01100, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22NWCV01100 Hearing Date: November 8, 2023 Dept: C
Alarid v. General Motors
CASE NO.: 22NWCV01100
HEARING: 11/8/23 @ 10:30 AM
#8
Defendant’s Demurrer is OVERRULED and its
Motion to Strike is DENIED.
Moving Party to give NOTICE.
Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant)
demurs to the First Amended Complaint’s (FAC) Fifth Cause of Action for Fraud
and moves to strike the FAC’s claim for punitive damages.
Plaintiffs
Yvonne Marie Alarid and Jennifer Alarid allege Defendant violated the
Song-Beverly Act and fraudulently induced Plaintiffs into purchasing a 2018
Chevrolet Cruze manufactured by Defendant. They allege that Defendant knew
about a cooling system defect in 2010 and knew that the cooling system
installed in Plaintiffs’ vehicle had that defect, which caused coolant to leak.
Legal
Standard
The party against whom
a complaint has been filed may object to the pleading, by demurrer, on several
grounds, including the ground that the pleading does not state facts sufficient
to constitute a cause of action. (CCP § 430.10(e).) A party may demur to an
entire complaint, or to any causes of action stated therein. (CCP § 430.50(a).)
Motions
to strike are used to reach defects or objections to pleadings which are not
challengeable by demurrer (i.e., words, phrases, prayer for damages, etc.). (CCP
§§ 435, 436 & 437.) A motion to strike lies only where the pleading has
irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in
conformity with laws. (C.C.P. § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must
appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (C.C.P. §
437.)
Discussion
Defendant demurs to the FAC’s Fifth Cause of
Action for Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment on the grounds that it is barred
by the statute of limitations and fails to state a claim. Defendant also moves
to strike Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages.
Defendant argues that the Fraud cause of action
is barred by the statute of limitations because Plaintiff cannot invoke tolling
for delayed discovery. However, on Demurrer, the Court must accept each
allegation within the complaint as true. No matter how unlikely or improbable,
the complainant’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of
ruling on the demurrer. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co.
(1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604.) Thus, at this stage of the proceedings, the
court accepts as true Plaintiffs’ allegations that they did not discover
Defendant’s alleged fraudulent concealment of latent defects “until shortly
before the filing of the complaint ….” (FAC ¶ 46.) Plaintiffs’ Fraud cause of
action is not barred by the statute of limitations because they have adequately
pled that it was tolled.
Defendant also argues that the Fraud cause of
action fails to state a claim because it was not pled with particularity.
However, the FAC details allegations that Defendant knew of the defect since
2010, that the defect is unreasonably dangerous to consumers, Defendant
published technical service bulletins regarding the defects in the cooling
system, and Defendant knew the cooling system in Plaintiffs’ vehicle was
defective. (FAC ¶¶ 23-38.) Thus, the FAC contains adequate allegations to
support a cause of action for fraud at this stage. Therefore, Defendant’s
Demurrer to the Fraud cause of action is overruled on both grounds.
Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’
claim for punitive damages should be struck from the FAC because there are no
supporting allegations of fraud. However, this Court finds that Plaintiffs
properly alleged a fraud cause of action. Thus, Defendant’s Motion to Strike
Punitive Damages is denied.
Accordingly, Defendant’s
Demurrer is OVERRULED and its Motion to Strike is DENIED.