Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2023-00029921-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 29, 2024

05/30/2024  09:00:00 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 37-2023-00029921-CU-BC-CTL ZAPPIA VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants Ford Motor Company and Gosch Ford Escondido's Demurrer to Complaint (ROA 16) is OVERRULED.

As to the fifth cause of action for fraudulent inducement by concealment, Defendants assert Plaintiffs have not pled their fraud claim 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, Defendants assert Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged the transmission defect that was concealed, and have not alleged a sufficient basis to support Ford's duty to disclose the alleged defect.

However, the defect is adequately described in the Complaint. (See, e.g., Compl. at ¶ 25.) Further, the court finds Plaintiffs have, at the least, adequately alleged the existence of a duty to disclose based on the transactional relationship between Plaintiffs and Ford. (Compl. ¶¶ 9-10.) Accordingly, the court need not address whether there are other bases on which such a duty may be founded.

Defendants also assert Plaintiffs' fifth cause of action is barred by the economic loss rule. Again, the court finds the cause of action is sufficiently alleged to survive demurrer; it is not clear from the face of the pleadings that the claim is barred by the economic loss rule. (See Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828, 843, review granted, Dhital v. Nissan North America (2023) 523 P.3d 392; Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (9th Cir. 2021) 19 F.4th 1188, 1193.) As to Plaintiffs' sixth cause of action for negligent repair, Defendants assert Plaintiffs have not adequately pled damages because Plaintiffs do not allege they paid for any out-of-pocket repairs.

Defendants do not provide any authority for the proposition that Plaintiffs must assert a specific type of damages suffered as a result of the alleged negligence, as opposed the general allegation that the negligence caused damages that they have made. (Compl. ¶ 74.) The suggestion that such a specific allegation is required here because any repairs would have been covered by the existing warranties, even if it were otherwise supported by precedent which it is not, would necessarily fail, since this asserted fact is not alleged in the Complaint, nor is it otherwise clear from the face of the Complaint. Nor is it clear from the face of the Complaint that Plaintiffs suffered no damages beyond costs of repair. The element of damages is adequately alleged.

Defendants also argue the claim is barred by the economic loss rule, which 'requires a purchaser to recover in contract for purely economic loss due to disappointed expectations, unless he can demonstrate harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise.' (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988.) Here, Plaintiffs allege they brought the subject vehicle to Gosch for repair on at least one occasion, and Gosch 'breached its duty to Plaintiffs to use ordinary care Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3132676  12 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ZAPPIA VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY [IMAGED]  37-2023-00029921-CU-BC-CTL and skill by failing to properly store, prepare and repair the Subject Vehicle in accordance with industry standards.' (Compl. ¶¶ 72-73.) Although Defendants assert that there is no basis for a claim independent of the parties' underlying contractual relationship, that, again, is not clear from the face of the Complaint. Nor is it clear from the face of the Complaint that Plaintiffs suffered no consequential injury compensable in tort from the allegedly negligent repairs. The cause of action is sufficiently alleged to survive demurrer.

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

3132676  12