Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV33244, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33244    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 39

Sheri De La Cruz v. General Motors, LLC

Case No. 22STCV33244

Demurrer and Motion to Strike

            Plaintiff Sheri De La Cruz (“Plaintiff”) filed this case under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act against Defendant General Motors, LLC (“Defendant”).  Now, Defendant demurs to the fourth cause of action, which is fraudulent concealment, and moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages.

“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 Farias, not the defendant.”  (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.)  Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a motion to strike the whole pleading or any part thereof.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).)  On a motion to strike, the court may: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.)

            In order to assert a claim for fraudulent concealment, Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff by intentionally concealing or suppressing the fact; (4) Plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would not have purchased the vehicle had she known of the concealed or suppressed fact; and (5) Plaintiff 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.)  “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.) 

            In this case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “intentionally and knowingly falsely concealed, suppressed, and/or omitted material facts including the standard, quality or grade of the the GM’s 8L90 and 8L45 transmissions were defective and susceptible to sudden and premature failure, exposing drivers, occupants, and members of the public to safety risks . . . .”  (First Amended Complaint, ¶ 120.)  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “intentionally concealed the design defect found in the 8L90 and 8L45 transmissions because the of the common architecture of the transmission that causes ‘harsh shifts’ in lower gears, which can feel like jerking, lurching, and/or hesitations.”  (First Amended Complaint, ¶ 121, emphasis deleted.)  These are generic allegations that do not satisfy the pleading standard.  If the Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed based upon these allegations, there would be a fraudulent concealment claim in every Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act case, and the pleading standard would have no meaning.  Therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer to the fourth cause of action.   

            The Court grants the motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages, having sustained the demurrer to the fourth cause of action.  Plaintiff may recover civil penalties, not punitive damages, for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  (See Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (c).) 

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         The Court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the fourth cause of action and grants the motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages.

            2.         The Court denies leave to amend.  Plaintiff has already filed an amended complaint, and Plaintiff’s counsel articulates no facts that would satisfy the pleading standard for a fraud claim.

            3.         Defendant shall file an answer within twenty (20) days. 

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