Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: 24STCV33566, Date: 2025-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Cynthia Morales purchased a 2019 Jeep Cherokee manufactured by Defendant FCA, LLC, that allegedly displayed transmission defects, among others. Plaintiff alleges Defendant was aware of transmission defects in the 2019 Cherokee and attempted to conceal the defects. Plaintiff asserts causes of action against FCA 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 implied warranty of merchantability, and (5) fraudulent inducement – concealment. Plaintiff also brings a cause of action for negligent repair against Defendant Los Angeles Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram.

Defendant’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED in full. Whether or not leave to amend is granted shall depend on whether Plaintiff can make a sufficient offer of proof that she has facts which support any of her theories of tolling of the statute of limitations.

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice. (CCP § 430.30(a).) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.) Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Id.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

Defendant FCA demurrers to each cause of action in the Complaint. First, Defendant argues the warranty causes of action (First through Fourth) are time-barred under a four-year statute of limitations. Defendant also argues the fraud cause of action (Fifth) is time-barred under a three-year statute of limitations.

The “statute of limitations for an action for breach of warranty under the Song–Beverly Act is four years pursuant to section 2725 of the Uniform Commercial Code.” (Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 1297, 1306; Comm. Code § 2725.) As a general rule, a cause of action accrues at the time of delivery. (Id.) A cause of action for fraudulent concealment is three years. (CCP § 338(d).) “In general the fraudulent concealment by the defendant of a cause of action tolls the relevant statute of limitations, which does not begin to run until the aggrieved party discovers the existence of the cause of action.” (Community Cause v. Boatwright (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 888, 899.) “When a plaintiff alleges the fraudulent concealment of a cause of action, the same pleading and proof is required as in fraud cases: the plaintiff must show (1) the substantive elements of fraud, and (2) an excuse for late discovery of the facts.” (Id. at 900.) With regard to the substantive elements of fraud, “general pleading of the legal conclusion of fraud is insufficient; the facts constituting the fraud must be alleged, and the policy of liberal construction will not ordinarily be involved to sustain such a pleading defective in any material respect.” (Id. at 901.)

Plaintiff purchased the vehicle on or about August 19, 2019. (Compl. ¶ 7.) She filed this action over five years later on December 18, 2024. Through artful pleading and the omission of necessary allegations, Plaintiff has not alleged precisely when she discovered the defects to her vehicle. But she attempts to invoke various equitable or tolling doctrines by alleging: “To the extent there are any statutes of limitation applicable to Plaintiff's claims including, without limitation, the express warranty, implied warranty, and negligent repair – the running of the limitation periods have been tolled by, inter alia, the following doctrines or rules: equitable tolling, the discovery rule, the fraudulent concealment rules, equitable estoppel, the repair rule, and/or class action tolling (e.g., the American Pipe rule).” She further alleges that she “did not discover Defendant's wrongful conduct alleged herein until shortly before the filing of the complaint, as the Vehicle continued to exhibit symptoms of defects following Defendant FCA's unsuccessful attempts to repair them.” (Id. ¶ 38.)

When considering the nature of the allegations and timing of the action, the action appears barred by the statute of limitations on its face. In addition, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead delayed discovery or any other equitable doctrine. “In order to invoke [delayed discovery] to the statute of limitations, the plaintiff must specifically plead facts which show (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.” (Saliter v. Pierce Bros. Mortuaries (1978) 81 Cal. App. 3d 292, 297.) Plaintiff’s conclusory reliance on multiple equitable doctrines—without any facts to support them—is insufficient to meet that burden.

Plaintiff shall be required to make a sufficient offer of proof that she has facts which support any of her theories of tolling of the statute of limitations. If she fails to do so, there will be no leave to amend, and this case will be dismissed accordingly, per CCP §581 (f)(1).

A motion to strike lies either (1) to strike any irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) to strike any pleading or part thereof not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of court. (CCP § 436.)