Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 23SMCV01704, Date: 2025-06-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01704    Hearing Date: June 9, 2025    Dept: I

The matter is here for a Final Status Conference.  The court notes that the FSC order was given on December 29, 2023, but there was a delay waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on a case, Dhital.  That case was accepted for review and deferred pending Rattigan.  After Rattigan was decided, the Supreme Court dismissed the case (that is, it dismissed its review of the case; it did not dismiss the underlying action), by order effective December 24, 2024. 

The court has not received anything from the parties.  However, now that Dhital has been decided (in the sense that there will be no further statement from our Supreme Court), the court still needs to rule definitively on the demurrer.  In prior hearings, the court found the Bigler-Engler case more persuasive.  It held that absent a direct contractual relationship, the manufacturer was under no affirmative duty to speak and therefore no affirmative duty to disclose, which, in turn, means that fraud by concealment against the manufacturer cannot be alleged absent some other facts.  The other authority, Dhital, suggested—but almost in a throwaway comment—that the dealer was acting as the manufacturer’s agent and therefore there was a duty to speak because the dealer—the agent—had one, and that could be imputed to the principal.

The court notes that it will need to decide that issue before the parties go to trial, and the matter is now ripe for a final determination.  The court will discuss with the parties how to achieve that, likely by setting a hearing date.  The court understands why no FSC materials have been filed given that odd procedural posture, and it seems clear to the court that the trial date will have to be re-set.