Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV09384, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09384    Hearing Date: January 18, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant General Motors LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Michael Yanow

(1)   Demurrer to Complaint

(2)   Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with the demurrer and motion to strike.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Michael Yanow (“Plaintiff”) filed this lemon law action on April 26, 2023 against defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”). 

Plaintiff alleges six causes of action for (1) fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (4) breach of express warranty; (5) breach of implied warranty; and (6) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b).

Defendant now moves the court for an order (1) sustaining its demurrer to Plaintiff’s first, second, and third causes of action, and (2) striking from the Complaint Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages.

DEMURRER

The court overrules Defendant’s demurrer to the first cause of action for fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation because it states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for concealment since Plaintiff has alleged, with sufficient particularity, that (1) Defendant concealed material facts regarding the battery defect in the subject vehicle (Compl., ¶¶ 29, 25); (2) Defendant had a duty to disclose that fact to Plaintiff because Defendant had exclusive knowledge of the battery defect since 2017, which was not known to Plaintiff (Compl., ¶¶ 11, 13, 16-18, 31); (3) Defendant knew that its concealment of this fact would sell more vehicles (Compl., ¶ 34), such that the court reads the Complaint to allege that Defendant intended to defraud Plaintiff by its concealment of this fact; (4) Plaintiff did not know of the defect and would not have purchased the vehicle if he had known of the battery defect (Compl., ¶¶ 11, 33); and (5) Plaintiff was harmed as a result of the concealment (Compl., ¶ 35).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Hambrick v. Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 124, 162 [elements of cause of action for fraudulent concealment]; Bigler-Engler v. Breg, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 276, 311 [duty to disclose arises “when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff”].)

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the second cause of action for negligent misrepresentation because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has not alleged, with the requisite particularity, that Defendant made misrepresentations of fact, without reasonable ground for believing it to be true, with the intent to induce Plaintiff’s reliance thereon.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Borman v. Brown (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1048, 1060 [elements of cause of action for negligent misrepresentation]; Foster v. Sexton (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 998, 1028 [“For policy reasons . . . negligent misrepresentation . . . must be pleaded with particularity . . . .”].)  The court acknowledges that Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant, through its advertisements and publications, made false representations regarding the subject vehicle’s range on a single charge.  (Compl., ¶ 8.)  However, Plaintiff did not specifically allege, in connection with this alleged misrepresentation, that Defendant had no reasonable ground for believing that representation to be true, and that Defendant intended to induce Plaintiff’s reliance on that fact.  (Ibid.) 

The court also notes that, in opposition, Plaintiff contends that he alleged that Defendant misrepresented the defective qualities of the battery in the subject vehicle, including that it was safe.  (Opp., p. 6:22-23.)  But Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that Defendant made misrepresentations as to the safety of the subject vehicle; instead, Plaintiff has alleged, as set forth above, that Defendant concealed that fact from Plaintiff.  Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged facts supporting the cause of action for negligent misrepresentation (1) based on the alleged misrepresentation relating to the vehicle’s range on a single charge, or (2) based on the alleged concealment regarding the safety of the battery.

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the third cause of action for unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that he “has lost money or property as a result of [Defendant’s] unfair competition.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204.) 

MOTION TO STRIKE

            Defendant moves the court for an order striking Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages.  (Compl., p. 14, Prayer, ¶ 7.)

            The court denies Defendant’s motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages because Plaintiff has alleged facts establishing that Defendant is guilty of fraud.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436; Civ. Code, § 3294.)

ORDER

            The court overrules defendant General Motors LLC’s demurrer to plaintiff Michael Yanow’s first cause of action for fraudulent concealment.

The court sustains defendant General Motors LLC’s demurrer to plaintiff Michael Yanow’s second cause of action for negligent misrepresentation and third cause of action for unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

The court denies defendant General Motors LLC’s motion to strike.

The court grants plaintiff Michael Yanow 20 days leave to file a First Amended Complaint that cures the defects with the second cause of action for negligent misrepresentation and third cause of action for unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

            The court orders defendant General Motors LLC to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 18, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court