Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00422, Date: 2023-08-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23NWCV00422 Hearing Date: August 8, 2023 Dept: C
SAPIENZA v. COLLEY AUTO
CARS, INC.
CASE NO.: 23NWCV00422
HEARING: 8/8/23
#6
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants Colley Auto
Cars, Inc. and Ford Motor Company’s demurrer
to plaintiff’s first amended complaint is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend.
Moving Parties to give
NOTICE.
Defendants Colley Auto Cars, Inc. and Ford Motor
Company demur to the 3rd cause of action for
Fraud on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action.
First
Amended Complaint
On
April 27, 2020, Plaintiff Sapienza entered into a warranty contract with Ford
regarding a 2020 Ford Fusion vehicle. (Complaint,
¶ 15.) “Defects and nonconformities to
warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period,
including but not limited to transmission.”
(Id., ¶ 16.) def was unable to
repair the vehicle. (Id., ¶ 19.) Based thereon, the Complaint asserts causes
of action for:
1.
Violation of the Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express
Warranty
2.
Violation of the Song-Beverly Act – Section 1793.2
3rd
CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT
REPAIR: The elements are: 1) Legal duty owed to plaintiffs to use due care; 2)
breach of duty; 3) causation; and 4) damage to plaintiff. (Ladd v. County of
San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917.)
The
economic loss rule provides that “where a purchaser’s expectations in a sale
are frustrated because the product he bought is not working properly, his [or
her] remedy is said to be in contract alone, for he [or she] has suffered only
economic losses.” (Robinson
Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 988.)
“Tort damages have been permitted in contract cases where a breach of
duty directly causes physical injury; for breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing in insurance contracts; for wrongful discharge in violation of
fundamental public policy; or where the contract was fraudulently induced…. in
each of these cases, the duty that gives rise to tort liability is either
completely independent of the contract or arises from conduct which is both
intentional and intended to harm.” (Robinson, supra, 34 Cal.4th at
989–990.)
In
Robinson, the
California Supreme Court carved out a “narrow” and “limited” exception to the
economic loss rule, holding that “a defendant's affirmative misrepresentations
on which a plaintiff relies and which expose a plaintiff to liability for
personal damages independent of the plaintiff's economic loss” is excluded from
the economic loss rule. (Robinson, supra, 34 Cal.4th at 993.)
Here,
Plaintiff alleges a claim for negligent repair, which does not fall within the
narrow exceptions carved out by the California Supreme Court in Robinson. Plaintiff does not allege
that Defendant engaged in any intentional misconduct or made any affirmative
misrepresentations.
Plaintiff
contends that California courts recognize an exception to the economic loss
rule in cases involving negligent performance of services. In support of this claim, Plaintiff relies
upon North American Chemical Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th
764. However, subsequent courts have
questioned the validity of North American Chemical and this court
declines to follow it. (See Elrich v.
Menezes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 543 – “Conduct amounting to a
breach of contract becomes tortious only when it also violates a duty
independent of the contract arising from principles of tort law.”) Here, there is no independent tortious duty
besides the contractual duty under the warranty.
Furthermore,
the Complaint fails to plead damages. ¶ 45
alleges that Defendant’s breach was the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages.
However, there is no explanation of what Plaintiff’s damages were. As alleged, the warranty assured that repair
services were available to Plaintiff at no cost. Thus, the Complaint fails to
allege any damages.
Accordingly,
the demurrer to the 3rd cause of action is SUSTAINED with 10 days
leave to amend.