Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 2021-01231613, Date: 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling
1) Demurrer to Complaint – SUSTAINED with leave to amend
2) Motion to Strike Complaint – GRANTED
3) Case Management Conference – CONTINUED to October 10, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C31
(1) Demurrer to Complaint
Defendant General Motors, LLC’s demurrer to Plaintiffs Jose Francisco Rodriguez’s and Lisbeth Villarreal’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is sustained with 15 days leave to amend.
A demurrer presents an issue of law regarding the sufficiency of the allegations set forth in the complaint. (Lambert v. Carneghi (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1126.) The challenge is limited to the “four corners” of the pleading (which includes exhibits attached and incorporated therein) or from matters outside the pleading which are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code §§ 451 or 452.
Although California courts take a liberal view of inartfully drawn complaints, it remains essential that a complaint set forth the actionable facts relied upon with sufficient precision to inform the defendant of what plaintiff is complaining, and what remedies are being sought. (Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 413.) On demurrer, a complaint must be liberally construed. (CCP § 452; Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) All material facts properly pleaded, and reasonable inferences drawn from them, must be accepted as true. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-67.)
Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is for Fraudulent Inducement-Concealment. Based on the facts alleged in the FAC, the Court finds that this claim is barred by the economic loss rule.
The Court in Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988 (Robinson) explains that “the economic loss rule provides: [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. This doctrine hinges on a distinction drawn between transactions involving the sale of goods for commercial purposes where economic expectations are protected by commercial and contract law, and those involving the sale of defective products to individual consumers who are injured in a manner which has traditionally been remedied by resort to the law of torts. [Citation.] The economic loss rule requires a purchaser to recover in contract for purely economic loss due to disappointed expectations, unless he can demonstrate harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise.” (Id. at 991.)
In Southern California Gas Leak Cases (2019) 7 Cal.5th 391, 398, the court provides, “The issue here is whether SoCalGas — separate from other legal and practical reasons it had to prevent injury of any kind to the public — had a tort duty to guard against negligently causing what we and others have called ‘purely economic loss[es].’ [Citations.] We use that term as a shorthand for ‘pecuniary or commercial loss that does not arise from actionable physical, emotional or reputational injury to persons or physical injury to property.’ [Citation.]”
Here, Plaintiffs allege damages resulting only from the purchase of a defective vehicle. (FAC, ¶¶ 61, 75.) This alleged loss is purely economic and relates to the contractual express warranty. In other words, the FAC alleges damages arising from a commercial loss rather than “ ‘. . . physical, emotional or reputational injury to persons or physical injury to property.’ . . .” (Ibid.)
Although Robinson established an exception to the economic loss rule, the exception extends only to “. . . a defendant’s affirmative misrepresentation on which a plaintiff relies and which expose a plaintiff to liability for personal damages independent of the plaintiff’s economic loss.” (Robinson, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 993). Robinson did not expressly provide for an exception to the economic loss rule based on intentional concealment. Here, Plaintiffs claim for fraud relies on fraudulent concealment. (FAC, ¶¶ 77-86.)
As a result, the Court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the fifth cause of action.
Moreover, despite Plaintiffs’ arguments, the fraud claim is lacking the requisite specificity. “Concealment is a species of fraud, and fraud must be pleaded with specificity.” (Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 858, 878; see also Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1472 (the requirement that “[f]raud must be pleaded with specificity” applies equally to a cause of action for fraud and deceit based on concealment”).)
Defendant is ordered to give notice.
(2) MOTION TO STRIKE
Defendant General Motors, LLC’s motion to strike the reference to punitive damages in Plaintiffs’ FAC is GRANTED.
A court may strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading or strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436.) “Irrelevant” matters include: allegations not essential to the claim, allegations neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 431.10(b).) A motion to strike can also strike legal conclusions. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide, Civil Proc. before Trial, ¶ 7:179 (2010).) Conclusory allegations are permitted, however, if they are supported by other factual allegations in the complaint. (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App. 3d 1, 6.)
Defendant seeks to strike the reference to punitive damages from the Complaint at paragraph (f) in the Prayer.
Punitive damages are not an available remedy for Song-Beverly claims. (Civ. Code, § 1794).
Further, given the ruling as to the demurrer regarding the fifth cause of action, there are no remaining causes of action to support punitive damages.
Defendant is ordered to give notice.