Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case 22STCV15315 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV15315, Date: 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15315 Hearing Date: January 6, 2023 Dept: 39

Maria Iniguez v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.

Case No. 22STCV15315

Demurrer and Motion to Strike

Plaintiff Maria Iniguez (“Plaintiff”) filed this complaint against American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (“Defendant”), asserting causes of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is for fraud by omission, and Defendant demurs to this cause of action. Defendant also moves to strike portions of the operative complaint.

“It is black letter law that a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) In ruling on a demurrer, the court must “liberally construe[]” the allegations of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) “This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.” (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.)

Plaintiff must allege fraud with particularity. “This means: (1) general pleading of the legal conclusion of fraud is insufficient; and (2) every element of the cause of action for fraud must be alleged in full, factually and specifically, and the policy of liberal construction of pleading will not usually be invoked to sustain a pleading that is defective in any material respect.” (Wilhelm v. Pray, Price, Williams & Russell (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1324, 1331.) Under Civil Code section 1710, subdivision (3), an omission may give rise to an action for fraud in cases of “suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact.” (Civ. Code, § 1710, subd. (3).)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “Defendant designed, manufactured, tested, warranted, advertised, distributed, sold, and leased the 2018-2019 Honda Odyssey and Honda Pilot vehicles . . . which contain a defective integrated in-vehicle communication, navigation, and entertainment system . . . .” (Complaint, ¶ 45.) Plaintiff also alleges, “Specifically, Defendant failed to disclose or actively concealed at and after the time of purchase or repair: [¶] any and all known material defects or material nonconformity of the Subject Vehicle, including the Infotainment System Defect; [¶] that the Subject Vehicle, including its infotainment system, was not in good working order, was defective, and was not fit for the intended purposes; [¶] that the Subject Vehicle and its infotainment system was defective, despite the fact that Defendant knew of such defects prior to release, at least as early as 2017; and [¶] that Defendant further learned of the widespread problems plaguing consumers of vehicles equipped with the infotainment system through alarming failure rates, customer complaints, as well as through other internal sources, as early as 2017.” (Complaint, ¶ 53.)

These allegations are largely generic and contain no specific facts that would satisfy the pleading standard. For example, Plaintiff does not allege what information she received, and what information was omitted. Plaintiff does not allege the identities of those who communicated with her. Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant provided specific information about the infotainment system that was misleading. Plaintiff does not allege what “the Infotainment System Defect” was, exactly. Nor does Plaintiff allege that Defendant knew there was a defect, as opposed to unknown problems, with the system or that Defendant was unable or unwilling to repair the defect. “The very existence of a warranty presupposes that some defects may occur.” (Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334, 344-345.) To establish a fraud claim, Plaintiffs must allege facts demonstrating that Defendant “was aware of a defect . . . that it was either unwilling or unable to fix.” (Id., p. 345.) The complaint does not satisfy this standard. Indeed, the alleged complaints occurred in late 2017, and Plaintiff purchased the vehicle in early 2018. This time period does not support Plaintiff’s fraud claim. Defendant also argues that the economic loss rule bars the cause of action for fraud. This issue has been resolved. (See Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828 at *9.)

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. Defendant’s demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint within thirty (30) days. If Plaintiff fails to do so, Defendants shall file an answer within thirty (30) days of that deadline.

2. The Court denies Defendant’s motion to strike as moot. To the extent the motion seeks to strike other allegations, the motion is denied on the merits, because a motion to strike cannot be used as a “line item veto.” (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1683.)

3. Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.