Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV17052, Date: 2024-11-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV17052    Hearing Date: November 18, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: November 18, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint and Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation

Responding Party: Plaintiff Antonio Lopez Castillo

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER 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 and opposition.

BACKGROUND

On July 10, 2024, Plaintiff Antonio Lopez Castillo filed a complaint against Defendants Alicante Stone, Inc., et al., asserting causes of action for (1) negligence; (2) products liability – failure to warn; (3) products liability – design defect; (4) fraudulent concealment; and (5) breach of implied warranties. Plaintiff alleges he has suffered personal injury while working as cutter, fabricator, and installer of the named Defendants’ stone products.

ANALYSIS

A. Demurrer to Complaint

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 Costco Wholesale Corporation demurs to the fourth cause of action for fraud by concealment on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts with the requisite specificity.

“[T]o establish fraud through nondisclosure or concealment of facts, it is necessary to show the defendant ‘was under a legal duty to disclose them.’” (OCM Principal Opportunities Fund v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 835, 845.) Nondisclosure or concealment may constitute actionable fraud when: (1) there is a fiduciary relationship between the parties; (2) the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff; (3) the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff; and (4) the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses some material facts. (See Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. Insomniac, Inc. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 803, 831.)

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Costco sells custom, artificial stone countertops, and “officers of Costco, including Walter C. Jelinek (Chief Executive Officer), John Sullivan (Secretary) and Richard A. Galanti (Chief Financial Officer) were aware of the silicosis hazard of artificial stone and ratified the company’s concealment of those hazards to stone countertop fabricators.” Plaintiff alleges Defendants had a duty to disclose the hazards because Defendants had exclusive knowledge of the hazards and because Defendants made partial representations and suppressed material facts. The Court must treat these allegations as true on demurrer. This is sufficient to allege fraudulent concealment.

The demurrer is OVERRULED.

B. Motion to Strike

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages and to strike the allegations referencing “other silica-containing stone products to be identified during the course of discovery.” As Plaintiff has stated a claim for fraud, Plaintiff has alleged entitlement to punitive damages. The Court declines to strike the remaining allegations. Plaintiff may allege general statements in the complaint.

The motion to strike is DENIED.