Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01687, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22NWCV01687 Hearing Date: January 31, 2024 Dept: C
garcia, et al. v.
general motors
CASE NO.: 22NWCV01687
HEARING: 1/31/24 @ 9:30 AM
#2
1.
Defendant’s Demurrer to the FAC’s Fourth Cause of Action for Fraud is
SUSTAINED.
2.
Defendant’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is GRANTED and Paragraph 6
of the Prayer for Relief is STRICKEN.
3.
30 days leave to amend is GRANTED.
Moving Party to give NOTICE.
Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant)
demurs to the Fourth Cause of Action for Fraud in the First Amended Complaint
(FAC) and moves to strike the request for punitive damages.
Plaintiffs
Evelyn Celeste Garcia and Angel Olmeda Juarez filed a FAC against Defendant
alleging that it violated the Song-Beverly Act and fraudulently induced
Plaintiffs into purchasing a 2021 Chevrolet Silverado manufactured by
Defendant. They allege that Defendant knew about a transmission defect and knew
that the transmission installed in Plaintiffs’ vehicle had that defect.
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.)
Meet
and Confer
The
parties have adequately met and conferred.
Discussion
Defendant demurs to the Fourth Cause of Action
for Fraud on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute
a cause of action and fails to allege a duty to disclose. Defendant moves to
strike the claim for punitive damages based on Plaintiffs’ fraud cause of
action.
1.
Demurrer
Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead
their Fraud Cause of Action. Fraudulent Inducement- Concealment requires: 1) Defendant
concealed or suppressed a material fact; 2) defendant was under a duty to
disclose the fact to the plaintiff; 3) defendant intentionally concealed or
suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff; 4) plaintiff was
unaware of the fact and would not have acted in the same way knowing of the
concealed or suppressed fact; 5) causation; 6) and the plaintiff sustained
damage. (Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162
Cal.App.4th 858, 868.) Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have failed to
adequately plead that it had knowledge of the defect in the Plaintiffs’
vehicle. The Court takes judicial notice of the Second Amended Complaint in Dhital
v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828, 832 (Dhital
Complaint). The court ruled that plaintiff had adequately alleged “the CVT
transmissions installed in numerous Nissan vehicles (including the one
plaintiffs purchased) were defective ….” (Id. at 844.) The Dhital
Complaint alleged that defendant was aware or should have been aware of the
defect in plaintiff’s vehicle. (Dhital Complaint ¶¶ 30 and 54.) Plaintiffs have
not alleged that Defendant knew or should have known that the defect was
present in Plaintiffs’ vehicle in particular prior to sale. Thus, Plaintiffs
have failed to adequately allege fraudulent inducement.
Defendant makes several other arguments the
Court finds unpersuasive. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have failed
to adequately allege what information it should have disclosed. However,
Plaintiffs have stated in detail the information Defendant had about the
transmission defect that Plaintiffs contend should have been disclosed. Second,
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead intent.
However, Plaintiffs have alleged numerous facts regarding Defendant’s extensive
knowledge of the defects and the alleged motives behind Defendant’s
non-disclosure. (FAC ¶¶ 46-67, 127, 132, and 136.) Finally, Defendant argues
that Plaintiffs have failed to plead damages with adequate detail. However,
Plaintiffs have pled that they would not have purchased the vehicle if
Defendant had not allegedly concealed the defective transmission.
2.
Motion to Strike
Defendant’s Motion to Strike the FAC’s prayer
for punitive damages is granted because the underlying Fraud Cause of Action is
inadequately pled. Paragraph 6 of the FAC’s Prayer for Relief is stricken.
3.
Leave to Amend
Plaintiffs request leave to amend. Leave to
amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successfully
stating a cause of action. (Schulz v. Neovi Data Corp. (2007) 152 Cal.
App. 4th 86, 92.) Here, the Court finds that there is a reasonable probability
that Plaintiffs can state a cause of action for fraud. Thus, leave to amend is
granted.