Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 24PSCV04451, Date: 2025-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV04451, Date: 2025-04-03 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 a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 24PSCV04451 Hearing Date: April 3, 2025 Dept: G

Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Michael Cordero

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

Defendant Ford Motor Company’s counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiff Michael Cordero’s counsel regarding the demurrer and to file a supplemental declaration describing such meet and confer efforts, including whether the attempts were made by telephone, video conference, or in person, at least nine (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing on the demurrer.

BACKGROUND

This is a Song-Beverly action. On December 26, 2024, plaintiff Michael Cordero (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against defendants Ford Motor Company (Defendant) and Does 1through 20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty, (2) fraudulent inducement – concealment, and (3) negligent repair.

Plaintiff alleges the following. On March 2, 2019, Plaintiff purchased a new 2019 Ford F-150 (Subject Vehicle) and entered into an express written warranty contract (Warranty) with Defendant. The Warranty covers any repairs to the engine, including the transmission. The Subject Vehicle contains a 10R80 transmission, which Defendant knew or should have known about due to consumer complaints, warranty claims, and other sources that led Defendant to issue recalls. Plaintiff believes that Defendant was aware of the defects in the 10R80 transmission before March 2018. Defendant concealed the defects to Plaintiff and other costumers prior to purchasing or leasing their vehicles. After purchasing the Subject Vehicle, Plaintiff brought the Subject Vehicle to Defendant three times for repair. Defendant never told Plaintiff about the existence of the defect. If Plaintiff knew about the defect, Plaintiff would not have purchased or leased the Subject Vehicle or would have purchased the Subject Vehicle at a much lower price.

On March 6, 2025, Defendant filed the present demurrer. Defendant and Plaintiff have not met and conferred.

A hearing on the present demurrer is set for April 3, 2025. The court has scheduled a case management conference and an order to show cause re: failure to file proof of service for May 29, 2025.

DEMURRER

Defendants demur to Plaintiffs’ first, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action. For the following reasons, the court CONTINUES Defendant’s demurrer to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a), prior to filing a demurrer, “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.” This section further provides that “the demurring party shall identify all of the specific causes of action that it believes are subject to demurrer and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(1).)

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.)

Discussion

In this case, the court finds that Defendant’s counsel did not appropriately meet and confer before filing the present demurrer since the parties did not discuss the demurrer by telephone, video conference, or in person. On January 16, 2025, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel about the complaint’s perceived deficiencies and to schedule a telephone conference. (Brown Decl., ¶ 3.) As of March 5, 2025, however, Plaintiff did not respond to the email. (Brown Decl., ¶ 5.) Because an email is not a code-compliant means of meeting and conferring, a continuance of the hearing on the demurrer is appropriate for parties to meet and confer.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

The court orders Defendant’s counsel to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the present demurrer and to file a supplemental declaration describing such meet and confer efforts, including whether the attempts were made by telephone, video conference, or in person, at least nine (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing on the demurrer.