Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03740, Date: 2024-03-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV03740 Hearing Date: April 4, 2024 Dept: G
Defendant Maserati North America, Inc.’s Demurrer to
Plaintiff’s Complaint
Respondent: Plaintiff Heqian Zhang
TENTATIVE
RULING
Defendant Maserati North America, Inc.’s Demurrer to
Plaintiff’s Complaint is OVERRULED. Defendant to file its Answer to the Complaint
in ten (10) days.
BACKGROUND
This is a lemon law action. In July 2023, Plaintiff Heqian
Zhang allegedly entered into a warranty contract with Defendant Maserati North
America, Inc. (Maserati) by purchasing a 2023 Maserati Grecale. Subsequently,
Zhang alleges the vehicle exhibited numerous defects and nonconformities. Zhang
then alleges Maserati failed to adequately repair or replace the vehicle.
On December 4, 2023, Zhang filed a complaint against
Maserati and Does 1-10, alleging (1) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2,
subdivision (d); (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b);
(3) breach of express warranty; (4) breach of implied warranty; and (5)
violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.
On February 5, 2024, Maserati filed the present demurrer.
On March 11, the court continued the hearing on the demurrer in order for
parties to further meet and confer. On March 20, Maserati’s counsel met and
conferred telephonically with Zhang’s counsel. (Brignoni Suppl. Decl., ¶ 6.)
A hearing on the
present demurrer is set for April 4, 2024, with a case management conference on
May 21.
ANALYSIS
Maserati demurs to Zhang’s fifth cause of
action for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 on the
grounds that (1) Zhang lacks standing and (2) fails to allege unlawful, unfair,
or fraudulent conduct. For the following reasons, the court OVERRULES Maserati’s demurrer.
Legal Standard
Demurrer
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.)
Business and Professions Code § 17200
To state a cause of action for unfair
business practices, a plaintiff must establish defendant engaged in “unlawful,
unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or
misleading advertising.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200.) This section
establishes three types of unfair competition, prohibiting “practices that are
either ‘unfair,’ or ‘unlawful,’ or ‘fraudulent.’” (Pastoria v. Nationwide
Ins. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1496.) Thus, “An act or practice may be
actionable as “unfair” under the unfair competition law even if it is not
‘unlawful.’” (Chavez v. Whirlpool Corp. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 363, 374.)
However, despite the broad scope of Business and Professions Code section
17200, its remedies are limited to equitable relief and damages are not
recoverable. (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29
Cal.4th 1134, 1144.) A plaintiff has standing to bring an action for
unfair business practices if they “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money
or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic
injury, and (2) show that that economic injury was the result of,
i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice or false
advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.” (Kwikset Corp. v. Superior
Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 322.)
Discussion
In this case, Maserati argues the Complaint
fails to allege unlawful, fraudulent, or unfair business practices with the
required specificity. As to unlawful business practices, Maserati argues the
Complaint fails to allege the specific law that was violated and the facts that
show the alleged violation. But the Complaint does so by also alleging
violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. (Cf. Gutierrez v.
Carmax Auto Superstores California (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1234, 1265-1266
[alleged violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act are sufficient to
establish an unlawful business practice].) Furthermore, the court finds the Complaint
adequately establishes the alleged violations caused economic injury to Zhang
in the amount of the purchase price Zhang paid for the allegedly defective
vehicle. (Complaint, ¶ 60.)
Maserati also argues the Complaint fails to
adequately allege the existence of a fraudulent or unfair business practice. But
a demurrer may not “lie to a part of a cause of action.” (Cornejo v.
Lightbourne (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 932, 944.) Accordingly, because the
court found Zhang’s fifth cause of action was adequately pled, Maserati’s
demurrer is OVERRULED.
CONCLUSION