Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 22PSCV01739 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV01739, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01739 Hearing Date: April 6, 2023 Dept: G

Defendant Hemborg Ford’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiffs Quanyi Wang and Ruoxuan Li

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Hemborg Ford’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is SUSTAINED with twenty (20) days leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action. On November 29, 2021, Plaintiffs Quanyi Wang and Ruoxuan Li entered into a warranty contract with Ford Motor Company (Ford) by purchasing a 2021 Ford Explorer from Hemborg Ford (Defendant). Subsequently, Plaintiffs’ vehicle manifested engine defects.

On November 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Ford, Defendant, and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty, and (3) negligent repair.

On January 10, 2023, Defendant filed the present demurrer. Prior to filing on December 28, 2022, Defendant’s counsel met and conferred telephonically with Plaintiffs’ counsel and was unable to reach a resolution. (Cox Decl., ¶ 3.)

A hearing on the demurrer is set for April 6, 2023, along with a case management conference and OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service.

ANALYSIS

Defendant demurs to Plaintiffs’ third cause of action (negligent repair). For the following reasons, the court SUSTAINS Defendant’s demurrer with leave to amend.

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

Defendant argues Plaintiffs’ third cause of action for negligent repair fails to plead sufficient facts to state a claim because (1) it is barred by the economic loss rule and (2) fails to sufficiently plead damages. The court agrees it is barred by the economic loss rule.

The economic loss rule prevents tort recovery for “‘purely economic losses,’ meaning financial harm unaccompanied by physical or property damage.” (Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 905, 922.) This is because “conduct amounting to a breach of contract becomes tortious only when it also violates a duty independent of the contract arising from principles of tort law.” (Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 543, 551.) Economic loss can include “damages for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the defective product or consequent loss of profits.” (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988, quoting Jimenez v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 473, 482 (Robinson).)

In this case, Plaintiffs allege Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty “to use ordinary care and skill in storage, preparation and repair of the Subject Vehicle in accordance with industry standards.” (Complaint, ¶ 42.) Plaintiffs note no contract of any kind has been pled with regards to Defendant. Plaintiffs are correct as the Complaint’s only description of the relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendant is a vague statement that “Plaintiff delivered the Subject Vehicle to Defendant[] for repair of on numerous occasions.” (Complaint, ¶ 42.) Therefore, it is unclear whether Defendant’s duty to repair Plaintiffs’ vehicle is contractual or based on an independent duty. But when it is unclear if an action arises from a contract or noncontractual duty, “the action will be considered based on contract rather than tort.” (Arthur L. Sachs, Inc. v. City of Oceanside (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 315, 322.) Thus, because Plaintiffs’ negligent repair action is based on a contractual duty to repair and Plaintiff has not alleged any facts establishing an independent noncontractual duty contract, Plaintiffs’ third cause of action is barred by the economic loss rule.

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ third cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is SUSTAINED with twenty (20) days leave to amend as to the third cause of action.