Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV90990, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV90990 Hearing Date: January 14, 2025 Dept: 40
24STCV90990
Francisco Perez, et al v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER OVERRULING DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
I. BACKGROUND
The
complaint alleges that Defendant issued a warranty to Plaintiffs in connection
with their purchase of a 2019 Honda Pilot made by Defendant. The vehicle
developed defects that Defendant could not reasonably repair. Defendant
allegedly failed to provide the remedies permitted under the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”). Plaintiffs allege four separate violations of
the SBA.
II. ARGUMENTS
Defendant
demurs to the to the third cause of action for violation of Civil Code § 1793.2
which Plaintiff alleges require Defendant to make available to its privately
owned service and repair shops that literature and replacement parts to make
repairs during the express warranty period. Defendant argues the conclusions
are not supported by any facts, and the damage allegations are conclusory. Statutory
claims must be alleged with particularity.
In
opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the claim is adequately supported by the
alleged facts. Alternatively, Plaintiffs ask for leave to amend.
In
reply, Defendant contends that despite Plaintiffs’ admission that they must set
forth essential facts, Plaintiffs have not done so.
III. LEGAL
STANDARDS
The
bases for demurrer are limited by statute and may be sustained for reasons
including failure to state facts 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 third cause of action is based on a
violation of section 1793.2 (a)(3) of the SBA which provides that "[e]very
manufacturer of consumer goods sold in this state and for which the
manufacturer has made an express warranty shall: … (3) Make available to
authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and
replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period." (Civ.
Code, § 1793.2 subd. (a)(3).)
Defendant’s
case authority states the general rule that “the fair import of language used
in the pleading must be received to determine whether the adversary has been
fairly apprised of the factual basis of the claim against him.” (Semole
v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 714, 721.) It is also true, as
Defendant contends, that statutory claims must be pleaded with particularity. (Carter
v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396,
410.)
However, the issue in Carter was plaintiff’s failure to allege “exactly
how or in what manner” Defendant acted fraudulently and recklessly for purposes
of an elder abuse claim. (Id.) Fraud
claims are ordinarily required to be alleged with specificity showing “how,
when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were
tendered." (Stansfield
v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73.) Defendant
does not cite any authority that claims under the SBA must be alleged with the
same heightened specificity.
While
the allegations mirror the statutory language in section 1793.2, Defendant does
not explain what “specific facts” are necessary to “fairly apprise” Defendant
of the factual basis of the claim. Plaintiffs allege that parts and literature
required to be provided by Defendant to service facilities were not provided.
To the extent Defendant requires Plaintiffs to allege the particular part or
literature that was not provided, the contention is not supported by any
authority. Plaintiffs are required to
assert general allegations of ultimate fact. Evidentiary facts are not required. (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart
Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 26, 47; Lim v. The.TV Corp. Internat. (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 684, 690; Careau
& Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1390 [“It is both improper and insufficient for a
plaintiff to simply plead the evidence by which he hopes to prove such ultimate
facts."].) These are issues that can be determined in discovery.
Finally, Defendant’s contention that the
damage allegation is not supported by any facts is without merit. Plaintiffs
allege the statutory remedies permitted by that section, namely, civil
penalties of twice Plaintiffs’ actual damages. (Complaint, ¶31.) Moreover, "a
demurrer cannot rightfully be sustained to part of a cause of action or to a
particular type of damage or remedy." (Kong
v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1047).
V.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, demurrer to
Plaintiffs’ complaint is OVERRULED. Defendant is ordered to file an answer
within 10 days.