Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 24TRCV03295, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV03295, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24TRCV03295 Hearing Date: January 8, 2025 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: January 8, 2025

CASE NUMBER: 24TRCV03295

CASE NAME: Jennifer Isabella Conroy v. Ford Motor Company, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Ford Motor Company

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Ford Motor Company

TRIAL DATE: None set.

MOTION: (1) Demurrer

Tentative Rulings: (1) Ford’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On October 2, 2024, Plaintiff, Jennifer Isabella Conroy (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Ford Motor Company, and DOES 1 through 50. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(d); (2) Violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(b); (3) Violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(a)(3); (4) Breach of the Express Written – Civil Code § 1791.2, 1794; and (5) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability – Civil Code § 1791.1; 1714.

The complaint is based on Plaintiff’s allegation that on November 19, 2023, she entered into a warranty contract with Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) as to a 2023 Ford Explorer, with a vehicle identification number of 1FMSK7DH6PGB72039. (Complaint, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff notes that with her purchase, she also received an express written warranty in which Defendant undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the Vehicle or to provide compensation if there is a failure in utility or performance for a specified period of time. (Complaint, ¶ 10.) The warranty allegedly provided that in the event a defect developed with the Vehicle during the warranty period, Plaintiff could deliver the Vehicle for repair services to Defendant’s representative and the Vehicle would be repaired. (Complaint, ¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges that during the warranty period, defects and nonconformities manifested themselves, including but not limited to: (1) Defective infotainment system; and (2) Any additional complaints made by Plaintiff, whether or not they are contained in the records or on any repair orders. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Ford has unable and/or failed to service or repair the Vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts. (Complaint, ¶ 15.)

Now, Defendant, Ford filed a demurrer to the original complaint arguing that Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for “Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2 fails to

state sufficient facts alleging a failure to provide sufficient service literature and replacement parts.

B. Procedural

On November 7, 2024, Ford filed a Demurrer. On December 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief. On December 31 2024, Defendant Ford filed a reply brief.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) A demurrer “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.)

A pleading is uncertain if it is ambiguous or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) A demurrer for uncertainty may lie if the failure to label the parties and claims renders the complaint so confusing defendant cannot tell what he or she is supposed to respond to.¿ (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.) However, “[a] demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

B. Discussion

i. Meet and Confer Requirement

“Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).)¿¿

Counsel for Ford states, Joshoa D. Cools, states in his declaration (“Cools Decl.”), that on October 28, 2024, his office sent Plaintiff’s counsel of record a meet and confer letter requesting to engage in the meet and confer process and laid out the bases for the demurrer. (Cools Decl., ¶ 2, Exhibit 1.) As of the filing of this motion on November 7, 2024, Cools indicates that his office did not receive a response. (Cools Decl., ¶ 4.)

Although not argued by Plaintiff, the Court does not find Cools’ attempt to meet and confer sufficient prior to filing a demurrer. Sending one letter, with no indication of a follow up email, follow up telephone call, etc., does not lead this Court to believe that Cools engaged in a

good faith meet and confer prior to filing the demurrer. Nonetheless, the Court will address the merits of the demurrer.

ii. Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3)

Ford demurs to Plaintiff’s third cause of action for Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3) on the grounds that Ford argues it fails to allege sufficient facts to constitute a valid cause of action. California Civil Code section 1793.2 reads, in relevant part:

Every manufacturer of consumer goods sold in this state and for which the manufacturer has made an express warranty shall: “Make available to authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period.” (Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(a)(3).)¿

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that “[i]n violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3), Defendant failed to make available to its authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s failure to comply with its obligations pursuant to Civil Code section 1793.2(a)(3), and therefore brings this Cause of Action pursuant to Civil Code section 1794.” (Complaint, ¶ 32.) Plaintiff’s complaint also alleges, “Defendant’s failure to comply with its obligations under Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3) was willful, in that Defendant knew of its obligation to provide literature and replacement parts sufficient to allow is repair facilities to effect repairs during the warranty period, yet Defendant failed to take any action to correct its failure to comply with the law. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a civil penalty of two times Plaintiff's actual damages; pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(c).” (Complaint, ¶ 33.)

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged facts related to the Subject Vehicle’s repair history other than an allegedly defective Infotainment system. (Complaint, ¶ 12a.) In Plaintiff’s opposition, she states that the complaint includes allegations pertaining to the lease of the Subject Vehicle, receipt of Defendant’s express written warranty(s), that the vehicle contained or developed substantially impairing defects during the warranty, and presentation of the Vehicle to Defendant’s representatives for repair in accordance with the terms of the warranty. (Complaint, ¶¶ 6-18.)

The Court does not find the allegations described by Plaintiff to be sufficient regarding the repair history details. Most Lemon Law complaints describe the dates the Vehicle was taken in for repair, what issues caused Plaintiff to take the Vehicle in for repair, and sometimes what the diagnosis for the Vehicle was by the repair facility. Here, the Third Cause of Action contains only conclusory allegations with virtually no facts at all to support the claims alleged. (See Gutierrez v. Carmax Auto Superstores California (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1234, 1247-1248). For example, was there an inability to repair Infotainment system complaints in any way related to Ford’s provision ro lack of provision of service literature or replacement parts? What component parts should have been provided tot eh dealers but were not? What service literature was missing or not provided, and did that relate to the claimed inability to address an Infotainmetn system probel? Were there more than one visit for an Infotainmetn system complaint, and if so what were the Plaintiff’s complaints and the result of the dealer visit? There are things the Court would expect to see in an amended complaint. Simply put, there is no factual basis alleged for

Plaintiff's claim that he was "damaged by Defendant's failure to comply with its obligations pursuant to Civil Code section 1793.2(a)(3)." (Complaint, ¶ 32.)

Accordingly, the Demurrer to the Third Cause of Action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.¿

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Ford’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with twenty (20) days leave to amend.

Ford is ordered to give notice.