Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2021-00032048-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 02, 2023

11/03/2023  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2021-00032048-CU-BC-CTL SCHISLER VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 03/13/2023

Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint Defendant General Motors, LLC's Demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action in the Second Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. (ROA 55.) Plaintiffs' fifth cause of action is time-barred. (Code Civ. Proc. § 338(d).) Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) At the outset, the court notes that although Plaintiffs still make superficial reference to class action tolling in their Second Amended Complaint, they have now deleted the factual allegations purportedly related to it. (Compare FAC ¶¶ 43-45 with SAC ¶¶ 43-44.) The court construes this as a concession by Plaintiffs that class action tolling does not apply here.

Plaintiffs continue to assert the cause of action did not begin to accrue at the time they purchased the subject vehicle, yet Plaintiffs still do not sufficiently explain or allege any date on which their cause of action purportedly began to accrue, or meet their burden of pleading due diligence. Likewise, Plaintiffs still have not sufficiently pled facts of delayed discovery or equitable estoppel. Plaintiffs do not attempt to show how the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint materially differ from those the court found deficient in the First Amended Complaint, and the court does not perceive any material difference between them.

Plaintiffs assert their fraud claim is tolled by the 'repair doctrine,' citing Civil Code section 1793.1(a)(2).

The court remains unpersuaded this statute would apply to extend the statute of limitations on Plaintiffs' fraud claim. However, even assuming such a theory of tolling would apply here, Plaintiffs' pleading of a handful of repairs over the years is not sufficient to support their assertion that their claim has been tolled across that entire time period.

Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is GRANTED without leave to amend. (ROA 58.) Based on the court's ruling sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, Plaintiffs' allegations of fraud cannot form the basis of their prayer for punitive damages. Although Plaintiffs also assert they are entitled to seek punitive damages under the Song-Beverly Act, and allege willful violations of the Act, they have not sufficiently alleged a factual basis upon which punitive damages could be awarded. (SAC Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3040914  7 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SCHISLER VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED]  37-2021-00032048-CU-BC-CTL ¶¶ 70-72, 77, and 80.) An allegation of a willful violation of the Act, without more, is not sufficient to support a prayer for punitive damages. (Civ. Code § 3294.) Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages is stricken from the Second Amended Complaint.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3040914  7