Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00722, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00722    Hearing Date: May 16, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On September 26, 2022, Plaintiffs James Whitey and Southwest Concrete Structures, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) asserting claims for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and fraudulent concealment.  On January 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging that they purchased a 2020 GMC Sierra (the “Subject Vehicle”) on October 22, 2020.  (FAC, ¶ 4.)

On March 20, 2023, Defendant filed this demurrer and motion to strike.  Defendant demurs to Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action for fraud on the grounds that it “fails to state facts relevant to the elements of the claim, and therefore does not constitute an action” and “fails to allege a transactional relationship giving rise to a duty to disclose.”  (Demurrer, p. 2.)  Defendant also moves to strike Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face.¿(City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.)  “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.  [Citation.]”  (Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604 [“the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”].)  Allegations are to be liberally construed.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)  A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)   

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).)  The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].)  The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)  An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subd. (b).)  The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.) 

III.        DISCUSSION

A.   Meet and Confer

Defendant claims that it made a good faith effort to meet and confer with Plaintiffs but was unsuccessful.  (Declaration of Jesse Valencia, ¶ 2.)  This claim is contested by Plaintiffs’ counsel, Siyun Yang, who declares that defense counsel failed to contact her office or provide the legal reasoning underlying this demurrer and motion to strike.  (Yang Decl., ¶¶ 4.) 

“A determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(4).)  Therefore, the Court proceeds to analyze the demurrer and motion on its merits.

B.   Demurrer

1.   Pleading with Specificity

Defendant claims that Plaintiffs fail to plead with specificity the representations that they relied on in purchasing the vehicle.  (Demurrer, p. 7.)  The rule of specifically pleading how, when, where, to whom and by what means, misrepresentations were communicated is intended to apply to affirmative misrepresentations and not to concealment, as is the allegation here. (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356 at 1384.)  “The requirement of specificity is relaxed when the allegations indicate that ‘the defendant must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy.” (Tarmann v. State Farm (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 58.) 

          Therefore, Defendant’s demurrer on this ground is overruled.

2.   Duty to Disclose 

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs cannot prove that there was a duty to disclose because a duty to disclose cannot arise between a defendant and the public at large.  (Defendant pp. 8-9.)  When any claim for fraud is based on an omission, one of the following four circumstances must apply in order to establish the defendant’s duty to disclose information to the plaintiff: (1) the defendant is the plaintiff’s fiduciary; (2) the defendant has exclusive knowledge of material facts not known or reasonably accessible to the plaintiff; (3) the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff; and (4) the defendant makes partial representations that are misleading because some other material fact has not been disclosed. (LiMandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 326, 336.)  

In Bigler-Engle v. Breg, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 276, on which Defendant relies, the court of appeal reversed a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on a claim for intentional concealment on the grounds that there was no “transaction” arising from direct dealings between the plaintiff and defendant manufacturer of a medical device.  However, there was no evidence in Bigler that the device manufacturer “directly advertised its products to consumers” whereas here, Plaintiffs allege that they interacted with Defendant’s sales representatives and materials distributed by Defendant.  (FAC, ¶ 137.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer on this ground is also overruled.         C.           Motion to Strike

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages on the grounds that Plaintiffs fail to plead facts with requisite specificity to support punitive damages claim.  

Punitive damages are allowed in non-contract cases when a defendant is guilty of “oppression, fraud, or malice . . . .” (Civ. Code § 3294.) Here, because Plaintiffs have alleged a viable fraud claim, they have pleaded fraud for the purposes of entitlement to punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294. 

IV.     CONCLUSION 

Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.   

Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED.   

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 16th day of May, 2023

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.