Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV35538, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35538    Hearing Date: August 12, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 12, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Moving Party: Defendant Ford Motor Company

Responding Party: Plaintiff Manuel H. Mendivil

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF TO FILE AND SERVE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING. DEFENDANT TO FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS THEREAFTER.

            DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action arising out of the purchase of a 2020 Ford Ranger manufactured and distributed by Defendant Ford Motor Company. Plaintiff brings this action for breach of the express and implied warranty, violations of the Song-Beverly Act and fraudulent concealment.

ANALYSIS

A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings when the “complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.”  (CCP § §§ 438(b)(1) and (c)(1)(B)(ii).)  The grounds for motion provided for in this section shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.  (CCP § 438(d).)  Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.)   

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the sixth cause of action for fraud by concealment.

The elements of fraud are: “(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” (Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 184.) California law recognizes four circumstances in which a nondisclosure or concealment may constitute actionable fraud: “(1) when the defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff; (2) when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff; (3) when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff; and (4) when the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses some material facts.”  (Heliotis v. Schuman (1986) 181 Cal. App. 3d 646, 651.) 

Generally, “[i]n California, fraud must be pled specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice.” (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384, internal quotations omitted.) Fraudulent concealment need not be pled with the same degree of specificity, as “it appears from the nature of the allegations that the defendant must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy,” and it is necessarily difficult to specifically plead something that did not occur. (Id.) However, some level of specificity is required. (See Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 858, 878 [“Concealment is a species of fraud, and ‘[f]raud must be pleaded with specificity.’”])

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendant concealed a material fact and there was no duty to disclose any such facts. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to disclose the transmission defects to consumers. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant knew of the defect through pre-production testing data, early consumer complaints, warranty data, and other testing. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant made misrepresentations in its marketing materials through its authorized sales representatives. This is insufficiently specific to establish concealment.

Defendant also contends that Plaintiffs’ fraud claim is barred by the “economic loss rule.”  “[T]he 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.”  (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 979, 988 [internal quotations omitted].)  However, “the economic loss rule does not bar [plaintiff’s] fraud and intentional misrepresentation claims because they were independent of [defendant’s] breach of contract.”  (Id. at 991.) Here, though Plaintiff asserts a cause of action for fraud, the allegations lack the requisite specificity. Plaintiff’s allegations amount to only economic losses.

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.