Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV02758, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV02758    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Joe Casanova, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al. 

Defendant Covina Volkswagen’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint 

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer with leave to amend. Plaintiffs must file and serve an amended complaint within 20 days of the Court’s order. 

             Defendant Covina Volkswagen is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order. 

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law case. On September 8, 2023, plaintiffs Joe Casanova and Blanca Ramirez (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against defendants Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (VW), Covina Volkswagen (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for violation of subdivisions (D), (B), and (A)(3) of Civil Code section 1793.2, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and negligent repair. 

On November 13, 2023, Defendant Covina Volkswagen filed a demurrer to the fifth cause of cause for negligent repair. On January 9, 2024, Plaintiff opposed the demurrer. On January 16, 2024, Covina Volkswagen replied. 

LEGAL STANDARD

            A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings. It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party's pleading (complaint, answer or cross-complaint). (Code Civ. Proc., § 422.10; see Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purposes of ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true. (Id.)  

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 994.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered. (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881 [error for court to consider facts asserted in memorandum supporting demurrer]; see also Afuso v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 859, 862, disapproved on other grounds in Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287 [error to consider contents of release not part of court record].)  

A demurrer can be utilized where the “face of the complaint” itself is incomplete or discloses some defense that would bar recovery. (Guardian North Bay, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 963, 971-972.) The “face of the complaint” includes material contained in attached exhibits that are incorporated by reference into the complaint, or in a superseded complaint in the same action. (Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94; see also Barnett v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 500, 505 [“[W]e rely on and accept as true the contents of the exhibits and treat as surplusage the pleader’s allegations as to the legal effect of the exhibits.”])  

A demurrer can only be sustained when it disposes of an entire cause of action. (Poizner v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119; Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redev. Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1046.)  

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a), Covina Volkswagen was required to meet and confer telephonically or in person before bringing this demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The Court finds Covina Volkswagen’s meet-and-confer efforts to be sufficient. (Gamino Decl., ¶¶ 2-6.) 

Analysis

To state a cause of action based in negligence, the plaintiff must plead facts showing that the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty, the defendant breached the duty, and the breach caused the plaintiff’s damages or injuries. (Romero v. Los Angeles Rams (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 562, 567.) “[W]here a purchaser's expectations in a sale are frustrated because the product he bought is not working properly, his remedy is said to be in contract alone, for he has suffered only ‘economic’ losses.” (Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 979, 988, internal quotation marks omitted.) 

Defendant Covina Volkswagen demurs to the fifth cause of action for negligent repair on the grounds that it fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and that it is barred by the economic loss rule. Covina Volkswagen contends the complaint contains vague, conclusory allegations and otherwise fails to state any amount of damages at issue. Covina Volkswagen further contends that Plaintiffs failed to allege any damages other than economic losses and that they do not allege any physical injuries or damage to other property as a result of the alleged negligence. 

The Court does not find that the economic loss rule necessarily bars Plaintiffs’ claim for negligent repair. The “component exception” to the economic loss rule provides that “the economic loss rule does not necessarily bar recovery in tort for damage that a defective product (e.g., a window) causes to other portions of a larger product (e.g., a house) into which the former has been incorporated.” (Jimenez v. Superior Ct. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 473, 483.) The complaint alleges that the defects complained of “substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the Vehicle.” (Compl., ¶ 14.) The Court therefore finds that the component exception to the economic loss rule may apply here. 

Covina Volkswagen’s discussion regarding Plaintiffs’ citation to North American Chemical Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 764 is unpersuasive and unavailing. First, Covina Volkswagen cites only unpublished federal district court opinions as purportedly undermining North American Chemical Co., which are not binding on this Court. (See Haberbush v. Charles & Dorothy Cummins Family Limited Partnership (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1630, 1635 fn. 16.)[1] Second, Covina Volkswagen’s citation to Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc., supra, 34 Cal.4th 979 is also unavailing. The Supreme Court in Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. addressed the Jimenez case extensively, but it does not address the component exception articulated by the Supreme Court in Jimenez. (Id., supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 357-358.) 

Nevertheless, the Court does agree with Covina Volkswagen that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for negligent repair. The allegations of the complaint are conclusory and almost completely devoid of detail as to what Defendant Covina Volkswagen allegedly did or did not do in connection with attempting to repair the subject vehicle. (See Compl., ¶¶ 55-59.) The complaint does not allege the total number of repairs attempted, the dates when Plaintiffs took the subject vehicle to Covina Volkswagen to attempt repairs, what repairs Covina Volkswagen attempted, what Covina Volkswagen did that was allegedly wrong, or how Covina Volkswagen allegedly caused any damages to the subject vehicle. The Court finds these allegations to be lacking in detail. 

             Based on the foregoing, the Court SUSTAINS the demurrer to the fifth cause of action with leave to amend. 

CONCLUSION

The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer with leave to amend. Plaintiffs must file and serve an amended complaint within 20 days of the Court’s order.