Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV14268, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14268    Hearing Date: October 26, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 26, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Tahaz Motors Group, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Richard Reinke

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANT TO FILE AND SERVE ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

            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

On April 28, 2022, Plaintiff sued Defendant, asserting causes of action for (1) intentional misrepresentation; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) UCL violations; (4) bond claim; (5) violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act; and (6) breach of implied warranty. Plaintiff alleges he purchased a used vehicle from Defendant that was not in merchantable condition.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action in it.  (CCP § 430.50(a).)  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)  The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Id. at 732-33.)  The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Id. at 733.)

Defendant demurs to the first and second causes of action for intentional and negligent misrepresentation.

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.) In California, fraud, including negligent misrepresentation, must be pled with specificity. (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 184.) “The particularity demands that a plaintiff plead facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1469.) 

Defendant asserts that the fraud claims are not alleged with the requisite specificity. Plaintiff alleges that on February 18, 2022, Defendant’s sales staff represented that the subject vehicle was in good condition and came with a warranty issued by Defendant. Plaintiff alleges he relied on these representations when buying the vehicle. These allegations are simple and straightforward. Plaintiff has stated causes of action for misrepresentation.

Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.