Defense Demurrer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint
June 17, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________
02:00 PM LINE 7 25-CIV-04767 JIAQI WU VS. GENERAL MOTORS LLC.
JIAQI WU JAMES LAWRENCE CARROLL GENERAL MOTORS, LLC. KRISTEN ALLISON
Defense Demurrer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant General Motors, LLC (GM) and has demurred to the fraudulent inducement – concealment claim (fifth cause of action) in plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (FAC). Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
A.
Background
On or about December 10, 2019, plaintiff entered into a warranty contract with defendant GM regarding a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, which was manufactured and/or distributed by GM. (FAC, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff purchased the vehicle from GM’s authorized retailer, Stewart Chevrolet. (Id., ¶ 10.)
Plaintiff alleges GM knew that the 10-speed transmission for the subject vehicle was defective but failed to disclose that fact prior to and at the time of the sale. (FAC, ¶ 73.) Specifically, plaintiff alleges that GM knew that the engine had one or more defects that can result in (1) hesitation or delayed acceleration, (2) harsh or hard shifting, (3) jerking, (4) shuddering, or juddering; (5) surging and/or inability to control the vehicle’s speed, acceleration, or deceleration, (6) symptoms requiring reprogramming of the transmission control module (TCM) and/or powertrain control module, and (7) failure or replacement of the transmission. (Id., ¶ 74.)
Plaintiff alleges that GM knew about the defective transmission through sources not available to consumers such as plaintiff, including from pre-production and post-production tests; early consumer complaints made to GM and its network of dealers; aggregate warranty data compiled from FCA’s network of dealers; testing conducted by GM in response to these complaints; and warranty repair and part replacement data received from GM’s network of dealers – but deliberately concealed and failed to disclose those defects to its sales representatives and to plaintiff. (Id., ¶¶ 39, 47, 48, 72-80.)
B. Legal Standard
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
“[I]t is well settled that a general demurrer admits the truth of all material factual allegations in the complaint [citation]; that the question of plaintiff’s ability to prove these allegations, or the possible difficulty in making such proof does not concern the reviewing court [citations]; and that plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief [citation].” (John’s Grill, Inc. v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th
June 17, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ 1003, 1013 (John’s Grill), quoting Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 496 (Alcorn).)
A court reviewing a demurrer accepts as true the facts alleged in the complaint as well as those of which it may take judicial notice (John’s Grill, supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1008, citing Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318), but does not “assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.” (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967 (Aubry).) “Matters outside the complaint must be left for a determination at trial.” (Noguera v. North Monterey County Unified School District (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d, 64, 65.)
When a complaint sounds in fraud:
In California, fraud must be pled specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice. “Thus ‘the policy of liberal construction of the pleadings ... will not ordinarily be invoked to sustain a pleading defective in any material respect.’ This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which ‘show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.”
(Lazar v. Superior Ct. (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645, internal citations omitted, emphasis retained.) Similarly, when fraud is claimed against a corporation, the 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.)
C.
Discussion
The elements of a cause of action for fraud based on 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. (Jones v. ConocoPhillips Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1198, internal quotations and citations omitted.)
Plaintiff has failed to plead the Jones elements. Indeed, there are no allegations that plaintiff’s vehicle had a defective transmission — the allegedly undisclosed defect. (See, e.g., FAC, ¶¶ 10-14, 71-83.) Accordingly, plaintiff has not stated a cause of action for fraudulent concealment where he fails to connect GM’s purported non-disclosure of an allegedly defective transmission to any alleged defect with plaintiff’s vehicle, nor any resulting damages.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, GM’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and
June 17, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.