Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV01838, Date: 2024-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01838, Date: 2024-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01838 Hearing Date: January 9, 2024 Dept: C

Paola Cruz, et al. Vs General Motors LLC

Case No.: 23NWCV01838

Hearing Date: 1/9/24 at 9:30 a.m.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant GENERAL MOTORS, LLC’s Demurrer is OVERRULED and its Motion to Strike is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give NOTICE.

Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant) demurs to the First Amended Complaint’s (FAC) Fourth Cause of Action for Fraud – Fraudulent Inducement -- Concealment and moves to strike the FAC’s claim for punitive damages.

Background

Plaintiffs Paola Cruz and Luis Fernando Cruz-Punzo (“Plaintiffs”) 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 transmission defect in 2014 and knew that the transmission installed in Plaintiffs’ vehicle had that defect, which caused the shift to be too harsh or slip or flare.

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 Complaint’s Fourth Cause of Action for Fraud -- Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment on the grounds that it fails to state a claim. Defendant also moves to strike Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages. 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 2014, that the defect is unreasonably dangerous to consumers, Defendant published technical service bulletins regarding the defects in the transmission, and Defendant knew the transmission in Plaintiffs’ vehicle was defective. (Complaint ¶¶ 45-52.) Thus, the Complaint 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 Complaint 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.