Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV18136, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18136    Hearing Date: March 22, 2023    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.  The Court previously sustained a demurrer to this cause of action and granted a motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages.  Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, and Defendant again demurs to the cause of action for fraudulent concealment 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 infotainment system.  (First Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 54-55.)  Again, 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.  Plaintiffs’ allegations of concealment are generic and non-specific.    

The Court grants the motion to strike with respect to punitive damages and related allegations.  The Court is dismissing the fraud claim, and Plaintiffs may recover civil penalties, not punitive damages, for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  (See Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (c).)  Moreover, the complaint alleges insufficient facts to support a claim for punitive damages. 

Plaintiffs request leave to amend.  However, as the Court already provided Plaintiffs with an opportunity to allege a cause of action for fraud, and Plaintiffs failed to do so, leave to amend would be futile, and is unwarranted.  (See Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 168.) 

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1.         The Court sustains the demurrer to the fifth cause of action and grants the motion to strike.

2.         The Court denies leave to amend.

3.         Defendant shall file an answer within thirty (30) days. 

4.         Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion to compel further responses, which shall be heard on April 25, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.  The Court is dark for motions that date.  Therefore, the motion is continued to May 11, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. 

5.         The Court orders the parties to review the Court’s courtroom procedures, which contains a sample list of discovery for Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act cases, and to meet-and-confer whether they will stipulate to production of those documents within sixty (60) days.    

6.         The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.