Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

¿ 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

This case matter was reassigned, effective July 5, 2024. 

On October 30, 2020, plaintiffs Lisa Acrond and Margie Armstead (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Hyundai Motor America (“Defendant”), et al. for breach of warranty related to the purchase of a 2012 Hyundai Elantra on October 12, 1012. The initial complaint set forth six causes of action for (1) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2(d), (2) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2(b), (3) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2(a)(3), (4) breach of express written warranty, (5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and (6) fraud by omission. The complaint includes a prayer for punitive damages. 

On November 19, 2020, Plaintiffs filed proof of service demonstrating Defendant was served with the summons and complaint on November 6, 2020. 

On October 19, 2021, the Hon. Judge Draper granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, thereby rendering Defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint moot. (Min. Order, Oct. 19, 2021.) 

On October 10, 2023, the court at the time reconsidered the motion to compel arbitration under its own authority in light of Ochoa v Ford Motor Company (Ford Motor Warranty Cases) (2023) 306 Cal.Rprt.3d 611 and denied the motion to compel arbitration. (Min. Order, Oct. 10, 2023.) The matter was remanded to the superior court for all further proceedings. (Ibid.)  

On May 7, 2024, Defendant filed the instant demurrer with motion to strike. 

On July 31, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their opposition, arguing untimeliness. 

On August 6, 2024, Defendant filed its reply, and appears to seek the Court’s discretion in considering the motions. 

 

II. TIMELINESS OF MOTIONS 

Pursuant to CCP § 430.40, a party has thirty days after service of the complaint to demur to the complaint. A motion to strike, to be filed concurrently with a demurrer if so brought, follows the same timing requirement. (CCP § 435.) Considering this action was initially compelled the arbitration, the action in the superior court was effectively on hiatus, wherein no Answer or defaults were filed between the time the matter was compelled to arbitration to the time the arbitration was subsequently denied. 

However, nearly ten months after matter was remanded, Defendant now demurs and moves to strike the complaint. Additionally, trial is currently set for December 30, 2024. Defendant cites to no provision mandating that this Court must consider the motions on the merits, nor is there any that this Court is aware of under these circumstances. Thus, what remains is whether this Court will exercise its discretion to entertain the motions. 

Defendant provides no explanation as to why it waited close to ten months after the matter was remanded to file the instant demurrer and motion to strike. The Court therefore declines to exercise discretion to consider the untimely demurrer and motion to strike. The Court need not reach the substantiative arguments. 

 

III. CONCLUSION 

Defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike the complaint is moot on grounds of untimeliness. 

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: August 12, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.