Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00021566-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 29, 2024

03/01/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00021566-CU-BC-CTL CARDENAS VS. GENERAL MOTORS LLC CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant General Motors LLC's demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Defendant's motion to strike is GRANTED.

As of February 1, 2024, Plaintiff Manuel Cardenas has not filed an opposition to Defendant's motions.

Pursuant to this court's local rules, such failure to respond may be deemed a concession the motions have merit. (San Diego Local Rule 2.1.19.B.) A demurrer shall be sustained if the complaint 'does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e).) To test the sufficiency of a cause of action, the court treats as true 'all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.' (Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates v. Health Net of California, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 994, 1010.) The court may also consider matters that have been judicially noticed. (Id.) The court shall give the complaint a 'reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.' (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Defendant demurs to the fourth cause of action for fraudulent inducement–concealment on the grounds the claim fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, including that Defendant did not owe Plaintiffs a duty of disclosure, as Plaintiff has not adequately alleged a direct transaction between Defendant and Plaintiff. The court agrees the complaint lacks facts sufficient to establish a duty of disclosure.

To succeed on a fraudulent concealment claim, Plaintiffs must prove: (1) Defendant concealed or suppressed a material fact; (2) Defendant was under a duty to disclose the fact to Plaintiffs; (3) Defendant intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud Plaintiffs; (4) Plaintiffs were unaware of the fact and would not have acted purchased the subject vehicle of they had known of the concealed or suppressed fact; and (5) as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, Plaintiffs sustained damage. (Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 248 [quoting Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 748].) A duty to disclose arises only when some kind of preexisting relationship exists between the plaintiff and the defendant, and as 'a matter of common sense, such a relationship can only come into being as a result of some sort of transaction between the parties.' (LiMandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 326, 337.) 'Thus, a duty to disclose may arise from the relationship between seller and buyer, employer and prospective employee, doctor and patient, or parties entering into any kind of contractual agreement.' Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3004275  10 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CARDENAS VS. GENERAL MOTORS LLC  37-2023-00021566-CU-BC-CTL (Id.) 'Such a transaction must necessarily arise from direct dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant; it cannot arise between the defendant and the public at large.' (Bigler-Engler v. Breg, Inc.

(2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 276, 312.) Here, Plaintiff has not adequately alleged a transaction between himself and Defendant that is sufficient to trigger a duty of disclosure. Plaintiff alleges he 'interacted with GENERAL MOTORS LLC's sales representatives and/or reviewed materials distributed by Defendant concerning GENERAL MOTORS LLC vehicles prior to Plaintiff's lease of the Subject Vehicle.' (Complaint, ¶ 139.) However, a transaction sufficient to trigger a duty to disclose must arise from direct dealings between the plaintiff and defendant and 'cannot arise between the defendant and the public at large.' Plaintiff's generalized and conclusory allegations regarding 'materials' at best describe a 'relationship' between Defendant and the public at large, and not directly between Plaintiff and Defendant. As such, Plaintiff has failed to allege Defendant had a duty to disclose the alleged defect, and therefore has not adequately stated a claim for fraudulent concealment.

Accordingly, Defendant's demurrer to the fourth cause of action is sustained with leave to amend.

As to Defendant's motion to strike, Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages relies exclusively on their fraud claim. Consequently, the prayer for punitive damages is stricken. Plaintiffs have leave to amend.

Plaintiffs have 30 days from entry of this order to file and serve an amended complaint.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3004275  10