Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV18136, Date: 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18136    Hearing Date: October 17, 2022    Dept: 39

Dolia Yomtoob, et al. v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.

Case No. 22STCV18136

Demurrer and Motion to Strike

            Plaintiff Dolia Yomtoob and Don Mehrabi (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act against American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (“Defendant”).  Plaintiff asserts a cause of action for fraudulent concealment and seeks punitive damages.  Defendant demurs to the cause of action and moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages.

Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action is for fraudulent concealment.  Plaintiffs must allege the following: (1) Defendant concealed or suppressed a material fact; (2) Defendant had a duty to disclose the fact to Plaintiffs; (3) Defendant intended to defraud Plaintiffs by intentionally concealing or suppressing the fact; (4) Plaintiffs were unaware of the fact and would not have purchased the vehicle had she known of the concealed or suppressed fact; and (5) Plaintiffs suffered damages as a result of the concealment.  (See Hambrick v. Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 124, 162.)  Plaintiffs 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.) 

In this case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant did not disclose defects with the “integrated in-vehicle communication, navigation, and entertainment system.”  (Complaint, ¶ 45.)  There are two problems with this complaint.  First, Plaintiff alleges no independent damages stemming from the fraud claim.  (See Food Safety Net Services v. Eco Safe Systems USA, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1130, citing Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988.)  Second, Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts to satisfy the pleading standard, because the allegations are generic.  Plaintiffs do not allege what information they received when they purchased the vehicle and how that information was misleading.  More important, the allegations themselves establish that this case is not a fraud case.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant was aware of the defect in August 2017.  (Complaint, ¶ 51.)  Plaintiffs purchased the vehicle on or about February 11, 2018.  (Complaint, ¶ 10.)  This time period does not establish an intent to defraud Plaintiffs.  “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. 

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court sustains the demurrer to the fifth cause of action.  The Court denies leave to amend because Plaintiffs articulate no facts suggesting that an amendment would be successful.  The Court takes the motion to strike off-calendar as moot.  Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.