Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 22PSCV01706, Date: 2023-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01706    Hearing Date: February 8, 2023    Dept: O

Hearing date:                          Wednesday, February 8, 2023

RE:                                          CARLOS ROSALES VASQUEZ vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. (22PSCV01706)

________________________________________________________________________

(1)   DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO (“AHM”)., INC.’S DEMURRER TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT-CONCEALMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

(2)   DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Responding Party: Plaintiff

Tentative Ruling

(1)   DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.’S DEMURRER TO TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT-CONCEALMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

(2)   DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES is MOOT.

Background

This is a lemon law case. The action pertains to Plaintiff’s lease of a new 2020 Honda Pilot, specifically pertaining to the “Honda Sensing Defect.”

On November 7, 2022 Plaintiff Vasquez filed suit for SBA violations and Fraudulent Inducement—Concealment.

On December 7, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Demurrer w/a motion to strike.

On January 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Opposition.

On February 1, 2023, Defendant filed its Reply.

Discussion

Defendant demurs fraudulent inducement by concealment cause of action.

Fraudulent Inducement—Concealment

The elements of an action for fraud and deceit based on a concealment are: (1) the defendant must have concealed or suppressed a material fact, (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage. (Boschma v. Home Loan Ctr., Inc., 198 Cal. App. 4th 230, 248, see also CACI 1901.) Additionally, fraud must be pled specifically wherein a plaintiff shows “how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal. App. 3d 59, 74.) Furthermore, as for this requirement of specify, in an action against a corporation, a plaintiff must “allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written. (Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.

“A fact is deemed ‘material,’ and obligates an exclusively knowledgeable defendant to disclose it, if a “reasonable [consumer]’ would deem it important in determining how to act in the transaction at issue.” (Collins v. eMachines, Inc. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 249, 256.)

Defendant advances a variety of arguments, but the court will only focus on its contention that Plaintiff’s claim that AHM concealed information is contradicted by extensive allegations that AHM publicly disclosed material regarding the alleged sensing defect through NHTSA from 2015 to 2018. (Demurrer p. 22.)

Here, the Complaint states at length that AHM disclosed information regarding the sensing defect from 2015 to 2018 through various Technical Service Bulletins, Technical Articles, and recalls, all of which were made public by AHM through NHTSA as required by federal law. (See Complaint ¶32 [“In the month prior to this report coming out, in May of 2015, Honda recalled thousands of 2014-2015 Acura MDX and RLX vehicles due to a defect in the CMBS whereby the system may unexpectedly activate while in operation.”], ¶54 [For example, in January of 2017, Honda issued ATS 170102, titled “Radar Obstructed Message in the Driver Information Interface”.], ¶ [“[I]n February of 2017, Honda issued ATS … instructed dealers to re-aim the radar. Therein, Honda explained: Some early production vehicles undergoing PDI or coming in with low mileage may have this issue . . .”], ¶58 [“Honda issued TSB 17-064 titled “MID Displays ACC, LKAY, RDM, Brake Warnings and Other Listed Symptoms.” This TSB states: There is an internal issue with the millimeter wave radar software, which may lead to one or more of the following symptoms….”], ¶61 [“Honda issued a Tech Line Summary Article titled “Collision Mitigation Braking System and Road Departure Mitigation Indicators Blinking at PDI?”. This article explains that the Collision Mitigation Braking System and Road Departure Mitigation indicators may be blinking without any DTCs stored and that Honda is aware of and investigating the issue.”]) (emphasis added).

Accordingly, there disclosures were publicly available. To the extent that Plaintiff argues “[t]his information is not readily available to its consumers and AHM failed to disclose this information publicly or privately,” Plaintiff’s own complaint contradicts such a contention. (Opp. p. 10.)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the complaint fails to state a cause of action for concealment. The motion to strike is moot pending an amended complaint.