Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 22PSCV00902 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV00902, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 22PSCV00902 Hearing Date: March 28, 2023 Dept: G

Defendant General Motors LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiffs Camilo Rivera Guzman and Christian Rivera Gomez

Defendant General Motors LLC’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiffs Camilo Rivera Guzman and Christian Rivera Gomez

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant General Motors LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint are CONTINUED TO April 18, 2023, 8:30 a.m., Dept. G (Pomona).

Defendant’s counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the Demurrer and Motion to Strike and to file a supplemental declaration describing such meet and confer efforts at least (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action. On July 5, 2020, Camilo Rivera Guzman and Christian Rivera Gomez (collectively, Plaintiffs) entered into a warranty contract with Defendant General Motors LLC by purchasing a 2020 Chevrolet Colorado. The warranty contract included a 3-year/36,000-mile express bumper to bumper warranty and a 5-year/60,000-milpowertrain warranty. Shortly after purchasing their vehicle, Plaintiffs began experiencing transmission defects.

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant and Does 1-10, alleging (1) breach of express warranty in violation of the Song-Beverly Act, (2) breach of implied warranty in violation of the Song-Beverly Act, (3) violation of Section 1793.2, subdivision (b) of the Song-Beverly Act, and (4) fraud by concealment.

On December 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against same Defendants alleging the same causes of action.

On February 27, 2023, Defendant filed the present demurrer and motion to strike. Prior to filing, Defendant’s counsel attempted to meet and confer telephonically with Plaintiffs’ counsel but was unsuccessful. (Valencia Decl., ¶ 2.)

A hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike is set for March 28, 2023, along with a case management conference.

ANALYSIS

Defendant demurs to Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action (concealment). For the following reasons, the court continues the hearing.

Legal Standard

A party may demur to a complaint on the grounds that it “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) A demurrer tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 (Hahn).) When considering demurrers, courts accept all well pleaded facts as true. (Fox v. JAMDAT Mobile, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, at p. 747.)

Discussion

Prior to filing a demurrer, the moving party is required to meet and confer telephonically or in-person with the opposing party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) While Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a)(4) makes clear failing to meet and confer is not grounds to overrule a demurrer, courts “are not required to ignore defects in the meet and confer process” and if the court determines “no meet and confer has taken place, or concludes further conferences between counsel would likely be productive, it retains discretion to order counsel to meaningfully discuss the pleadings with an eye toward reducing the number of issues or eliminating the need for a demurrer, and to continue the hearing date to facilitate that effort.” (Dumas v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 348, 355 & fn. 3.)

In this case, Defendant’s counsel has submitted a very brief description of counsel’s meet and confer efforts, stating “Prior to filing [Defendant’s] Demurrer and Motion to Strike, this office attempted to meet and confer telephonically with Plaintiffs’ counsel to discuss the issues we had with Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, but unfortunately, were unsuccessful in our attempts.” (Valencia Decl., ¶ 2.) On its own, this statement is barely sufficient. It does not state when Defendant’s counsel attempted to meet and confer nor how Defendant’s counsel attempted to meet and confer. Defendant’s counsel also does not establish how counsel was unsuccessful. Defendant’s counsel also fails to provide copies or exhibits of any correspondence to support these statements. Lastly, Plaintiffs’ counsel also submitted a declaration stating Defendant’s counsel never called Plaintiffs’ counsel to meet and confer. (Anglin Decl., ¶ 2.)

Thus, in light of the vague declaration from Defendant’s counsel and contradictory declaration rom Plaintiff’s counsel, the court finds Defendant’s counsel has not adequately met and conferred and that further efforts could be productive. Accordingly, the court finds a continuance of the hearing on Defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and motion to strike are CONTINUED TO April 18, 2023, 8:30 a.m., Dept. G (Pomona).

Defendant’s counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the demurrer and motion to strike and to file a supplemental declaration describing such meet and confer efforts at least (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing.