Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2022-00040178-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 27, 2024

06/28/2024  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 37-2022-00040178-CU-BC-CTL ZARIAN VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 01/26/2024

Defendant General Motors LLC's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ROA 65) is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has not pled the fifth cause of action for Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment with sufficient specificity. 'In California, fraud must be pled specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice.' (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.) Specifically, Defendant asserts Plaintiff has not adequately pled the identity of representatives of Defendant who made any misrepresentations, their authority to speak on Defendant's behalf, Defendant's knowledge of the defects, the interactions Plaintiff had with Defendant, and Defendant's intent to induce reliance. However, Plaintiff is alleging concealment, not an affirmative misrepresentation. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged what was concealed from him at the time he was leasing the vehicle (the battery defect) and why it was material; he would not have leased the vehicle.

Defendant also asserts Plaintiff has not adequately alleged the existence of a duty to disclose based on any transactional relationship between the parties. However, Plaintiff does allege a warranty contract between the parties. (FAC ¶ 6.) Accordingly, the court overrules the demurrer to the extent it is based on the contention that Plaintiff has not adequately pled facts of fraud.

Defendant also asserts that the fifth cause of action is time-barred. (Code Civ. Proc. § 338(d).) Plaintiff leased the subject vehicle on September 15, 2019 and alleges that Defendant was aware of the defect at the time Plaintiff leased it, but this lawsuit was not filed until more than three years later on October 6, 2022. The court sustains the demurrer on these grounds, with leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) Plaintiff asserts that the First Amended Complaint discloses no statute of limitations defense. The court disagrees. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant had known about the alleged defect in this vehicle model since 2016 (FAC ¶ 23), well before Plaintiff leased the subject vehicle, but alleges only that Plaintiff discovered the wrongful conduct 'shortly' before filing this complaint (FAC ¶ 41). Plaintiff is required to plead his fraud claim with specificity, including facts that led to the discovery of the wrongful conduct and the accrual of the cause of action. (Lazar, supra.) In addition, to apply the delayed discovery rule, Plaintiff is required to 'plead facts to show (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.' (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 808, italics and citation omitted).) Plaintiff never alleges when and how he discovered the defect, other than to assert that it was 'shortly' before he filed the complaint. (FAC ¶ 41.) Plaintiff asserts the cause of action is subject to equitable tolling. 'The doctrine of fraudulent Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3082204  10 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ZARIAN VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00040178-CU-BC-CTL concealment tolls the statute of limitations where a defendant, through deceptive conduct, has cause a claim to grow stale.' (Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1185, 1192.) Although Plaintiff superficially alleges that his fraud claim is equitably tolled by Defendant's alleged active concealment of the alleged defects (FAC ¶ 42), the pleading lacks sufficient facts to support equitable tolling. (Lazar, supra.) Lastly, Plaintiff asserts the cause of action is tolled by the repair doctrine. (Civ. Code § 1793.1(a)(2).) The court is not persuaded that this statute would apply to extend the statute of limitations on Plaintiff's fraud claim, and Plaintiff has cited no case in which any court has applied this statute to a fraud claim.

Plaintiff is to file a First Amended Complaint on or before July 19, 2024.

Defendant's Motion to Strike Punitive Damages (ROA 66) is DENIED as moot based on the court's ruling sustaining the demurrer to the fraud claim with leave to amend.

Once confirmed, this ruling shall be the final ruling of the court and no further written order is required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3082204  10