TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant General Motors LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended [Complaint] is SUSTAINED with thirty (30) days leave to amend as to the fifth cause of action.

Defendant General Motors LLC’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is GRANTED with thirty (30) days leave to amend as to the prayer for punitive damages.

Plaintiff Sara Fallas-Dweck may amend her complaint only as authorized by the Court’s order and may not amend the complaint to add a new party or cause of action without having obtained permission to do so. (Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023.)

Defendant General Motors LLC to give notice. 

REASONING

Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) demurs to Plaintiff Sara Fallas-Dweck (“Plaintiff”)’s fifth cause of action for fraudulent inducement – concealment and moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages. As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendant failed to file a declaration regarding meet and confer efforts as required in Code of Civil Procedure sections 430.41, subdivision (a)(3), and 435.5, subdivision (a)(3). The moving papers reference a declaration of counsel, but no such declaration was filed to support the motions. Nonetheless, the Court credits Defendant’s statements in the motion papers that it met and conferred with Plaintiff as required.

Fifth Cause of Action: Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment

“The elements of a cause of action for fraudulent concealment are: (1) concealment of a material fact; (2) by a defendant with a duty to disclose; (3) the defendant intended to defraud by failing to disclose; (4) plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would not have acted as it did had it known the fact; and (5) damages.” (Butler America, LLC v. Aviation Assurance Company, LLC (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 136, 144.) “Fraud in the inducement is a subset of the tort of fraud. It occurs when the promisor knows what he is signing but his consent is induced by fraud, mutual assent is present and a contract is formed, which, by reason of the fraud, is voidable.” (Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828, 839, quotation marks omitted.) The facts constituting the alleged fraud must be alleged factually and specifically as to every element of fraud, as the policy of “liberal construction” of the pleadings will not ordinarily be invoked. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.) To properly allege fraud against a corporation, the plaintiffs must plead the names of the persons allegedly making the false representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written. (Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.)

In the fifth cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant committed fraud by allowing the subject vehicle to be sold to Plaintiff without disclosing that the vehicle and its lithium-ion battery were defective and susceptible to sudden and premature failure. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 73.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knew of the battery issues, as the battery had several defects, but Defendant’s directors, office, employees, affiliates, and agents concealed and failed to disclose the defective nature of the vehicle and its battery. (First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 74-76.)

First, Plaintiff fails to allege any specific facts as to who knew what specifically, did Plaintiff speak to any specific individual, did that person have authority to speak for Defendant, and what specifically was concealed from Plaintiff. It is also unclear whether Plaintiff directly transacted with Defendant, as Plaintiff alleges the purchase happened at a dealership. This is crucial to the claim because “[s]uppression of a material fact is actionable when there is a duty of disclosure, which may arise from a relationship between the parties, such as a buyer-seller relationship” (Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc., supra, 84 Cal.App.5th at p. 843), and it is not clear there was a buyer-seller relationship or other relationship providing a duty to disclose. Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to the fifth cause of action is SUSTAINED with thirty (30) days leave to amend.

Motion to Strike

Punitive damages may be recovered upon a proper showing of malice, fraud, or oppression. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) “Malice” is defined as conduct intended to cause injury to a person or despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others. (Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. Cal., Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) “Oppression” means despicable conduct subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship, in conscious disregard of the person’s rights. (Ibid.) “Fraud” is an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known by defendant, with intent to deprive a person of property, rights or otherwise cause injury. (Ibid.) Conclusory allegations, devoid of any factual assertions, are insufficient to support a conclusion that parties acted with oppression, fraud, or malice. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1042.)

Plaintiff has not pled a basis for imposing punitive damages given that the Court has sustained the demurrer as to fraud, and there are no allegations of malicious or oppressive conduct. Thus, Defendant’s motion to strike is GRANTED with thirty (30) days leave to amend.