Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24CMCV00459, Date: 2024-06-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24CMCV00459 Hearing Date: June 6, 2024 Dept: A
24CMCV00459
Jose Guevara and Mark Guevara v. General Motors, LLC, et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
The complaint
alleges that Defendant, General Motors, LLC (“GM”), issued a written warranty
to Plaintiffs in connection with their purchase of a 2022 Chevrolet Silverado,
manufactured by GM. The vehicle exhibited defects that GM was unable to repair.
GM allegedly failed to meet their obligations under the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act (“SBA”). Plaintiffs allege three counts for violations of the Act,
a fourth cause of action for violation of Business & Professions Code §
17200 (“UCL or Unfair Competition Law”) and a claim for negligent repair
against Defendant, Carson Chevrolet, LLC.
II.
ARGUMENTS
GM
demurs to the fourth cause of action, contending that Plaintiffs did not allege
any underlying statutory obligation to support a claim for violation of the
UCL. GM timely served the demurrer on May 3, 2024. Plaintiffs did not file an
opposition.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
The
bases for demurrer are limited by statute and may be sustained for reasons
including failure to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action and
uncertainty. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 430.10.) A demurrer “tests the sufficiency
of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law.” (Schmidt
v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.)
The court must assume the truth of (1) the properly pleaded factual
allegations; (2) facts that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly
pleaded; and (3) judicially noticed matters. (Blank
v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The court may not
consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore
v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 638.)
IV.
DISCUSSION
The UCL claim alleged here is predicated on
the underlying allegations for violation of the Act and is incorporated into
the fourth cause of action. (Complaint, ¶ 49.) Plaintiffs also expressly allege
that GM manufactured, marketed, and distributed a vehicle that was not fit for
intended purposes, did not meet Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and did
not confer any benefit to Plaintiffs. (Complaint, ¶51-53.) Plaintiffs were
allegedly required to overpay for the vehicle and received a quality of vehicle
that was less than their reasonable expectations. (Complaint, ¶56.)
Plaintiffs also allege that GM made false,
deceptive, misleading, and unreasonable statements in their marketing materials
which were likely to deceive members of the public. (Complaint, ¶ 58.)
Plaintiffs allege that all the alleged misconduct constitutes unfair, unlawful,
and fraudulent conduct.
The claim is adequately “tethered” to
unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent practices sufficient to support the claim for
unfair competition. (Gutierrez
v. Carmax Auto Superstores California
(2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1234, 1265 ["Virtually any statute or regulation (federal or state) can
serve as a predicate for a UCL unlawful practice cause of action."].) The
underlying claims for violations of the Act meet this standard.
The UCL is stated in the disjunctive; a plaintiff
need only allege a claim that is unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent. Under Section
17200, a practice is prohibited as ‘unfair’ or ‘deceptive’ even if not
‘unlawful’ and vice versa.”(Cel-Tech
Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180.)
The UCL’s coverage is “sweeping,
embracing” and includes anything that can be called a business practice that is
also forbidden by law. (Id.) It covers injuries to consumers, and its
major purpose is to preserve fair business competition. (Id.)
V.
CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, the fourth cause of action adequately alleges a claim for
violation of the UCL. Accordingly, the demurrer is OVERRULED. GM is ordered to
answer within 10 days.