Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 24STCV22022, Date: 2025-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV22022    Hearing Date: May 13, 2025    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 5-13-25

Case #: 24STCV22022

Trial Date: Not Set

DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT/MOTION TO STRIKE

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, General Motors, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Jamie Miller

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer to the Fist Amended Complaint

·         5^th Cause of Action: Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200

Motion to Strike the Claim for Punitive Damages

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On December 19, 2021, plaintiff Jamie Miller purchased a new 2021 model year Chevrolet Blazer vehicle. Plaintiff alleges defects with the seating system, suspension, windows, and ESC.

On August 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Breach of Implied Warranty, Breach of Express Warranty, Violation of Song Beverly Act, Violation of Magnuson-Moss Act, and Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

RULING

Demurrer: Sustained.

General Motors, LLC (GM) brings the subject demurer to the fifth cause of action for Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200 in the complaint on grounds that the claim lacks sufficient factual support. Plaintiff counters that the cause of action is sufficiently pled and alternatively requests leave to amend. GM in reply reiterates the lack of any factual basis and requests the demurrer be sustained without leave to amend.

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law . . . .” ’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616; Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139 [“[U]nder our liberal pleading rules, where the complaint contains substantive factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty should be overruled or plaintiff given leave to amend.]

The operative complaint relies on conclusive allegations that GM failed to disclose/concealed the “true” condition of the vehicle in order to induce Plaintiff into the “lease” of the vehicle (earlier allegations identify the transaction as a “purchase”).

5^th Cause of Action: Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200

GM challenges the violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200 claims on grounds of insufficient facts due to a lack of any misrepresentation.

“The UCL does not proscribe specific acts, but broadly prohibits ‘any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising....’” [¶] “‘A private plaintiff must make a twofold showing: he or she must demonstrate injury in fact and a loss of money or property caused by unfair competition.’ (Citation.)” (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1359.) Fact specific pleading is not required in order to allege an unfair business practice. (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 46–47.

An “unlawful” practice “means any practices forbidden by law, be it civil or criminal, federal, state, or municipal, statutory, regulatory, or court-made.… ‘Unfair’ simply means any practice whose harm to the victim outweighs its benefits. (Citation.) ‘Fraudulent,’ as used in the statute, does not refer to the common law tort of fraud but only requires a showing members of the public ‘“are likely to be deceived.”’” (Saunders v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 832, 838–839.) Fundamentally, recovery requires a direct harm to the consumer, and actual reliance. (Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 326–327.)

The complaint essentially relies on an unsupported fraudulent concealment basis without any actual factual basis regarding non-disclosure and therefore a nexus to any allegedly deceptive business practice. The demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Motion to Strike: Moot.

The complaint only appears to seek punitive damages in the fifth cause of action. The motion to strike is therefore MOOT.

In summary, the demurrer is sustained with 30 days leave to amend, and the motion to strike rendered moot. The court as a matter of policy allows leave to amend as this is the first review of the subject complaint, notwithstanding the request of GM to sustain without leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41.) Plaintiff may NOT add any new causes of action, but may clarify the facts in support of the challenged cause of action. (Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023.)

The court will concurrently conduct the Case Management Conference and OSC re: Failure to File Proof of Service.

Defendant to give notice.