Winokur vs. General Motors, LLC

The Demurrer to the Complaint brought by General Motors, LLC is SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART. To the extent the Demurrer is sustained, Plaintiff is GRANTED 15-days leave to amend.

The Demurrer is OVERRULED as to the Fourth Cause of Action.

The Demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

4th Cause of Action for Breach of Implied Warranty

The four-year statute of limitations articulated in Commercial Code section 2725 applies to claims brought pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act. (Krieger v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 205, 214-215.) “A breach of warranty occurs when tender of delivery is made, except that where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods and discovery of the breach must await the time of such performance the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered” (Com. Code, § 2725, subd. (2).)

Similarly, “[t]he statute of limitations for breaches of the implied warranty of merchantability is four years.” (Montoya v. Ford Motor Co. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 493, 494.)

Additionally, “an action covered by Section 871.20 shall not be brought later than six years after the date of original delivery of the motor vehicle.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 871.21, subd. (b).)

“[T]his chapter applies to an action, brought against a manufacturer who has elected under Section 871.29 to proceed under this chapter, seeking restitution or replacement of a motor vehicle pursuant to subdivision (b) or Page 18 of 27

(d) of Section 1793.2, Section 1793.22, or Section 1794 of the Civil Code, or for civil penalties pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 1794 of the Civil Code, where the request for restitution or replacement is based on noncompliance with the applicable express warranty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 871.20, subd. (a).)

GM, the Defendant in this action, has elected to opt-in to the above lemon law procedures. The Court takes judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h), of the Manufacturers Arbitration Certificate Program listings, located on the California Department of Consumer Affairs website, at https://www.dca.ca.gov/acp/accepted_manufacturers.shtml.

Per the Complaint, Plaintiffs entered into the relevant warranty contract on 12/11/20. (¶6 of Complaint.) Although not explicitly stated, the reasonable implication is that the vehicle was delivered to Plaintiffs, on that same date. On demurrer, the Court “assume[s] the truth of all properly pleaded facts, as well as all facts that may be implied or reasonably inferred from those expressly alleged....” (Sonoma Luxury Resort LLC v. California Regional Water Quality Control Bd. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 935, 940.) The instant action was not commenced until 6/4/25, approximately four and a half years after delivery of the vehicle.

While the Complaint is unclear as to when the express warranty expired, the Demurrer on this ground cannot be sustained. A demurrer based on a statute of limitations will not lie where the action may be, but is not necessarily, barred. (Boy Scouts of America Nat. Foundation v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 428, 438.) “In order for the bar to be raised by demurrer, the defect must clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint.” (Id. at pp. 438-439.) As the defect does not clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the Complaint, the demurrer on this ground fails.

Accordingly, the demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action is OVERRULED.

Fifth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Inducement/Concealment

The limitations period for Plaintiffs’ fraud cause of action is three years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subdivision (d).) “The cause of action in that case is not deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.” (Ibid.)

“California law recognizes a general, rebuttable presumption, that plaintiffs have ‘knowledge of the wrongful cause of an injury.’ ” (Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 623, 638 (Grisham).) The delayed discovery rule rebuts that presumption and tolls the statute of limitations. (Ibid.; See also Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 803.)

“In order to rely on the discovery rule for delayed accrual of a cause of action, ‘[a] plaintiff whose complaint shows on its face that his claim would be barred without the benefit of the discovery rule must specifically plead facts to show (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.’” (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 808.)

Likewise, "[w]hen a plaintiff relies on a theory of fraudulent concealment, delayed accrual, equitable tolling, or estoppel to save a cause of action that Page 19 of 27

otherwise appears on its face to be time-barred, he or she must specifically plead facts which, if proved, would support the theory." (Mills v. Forestex Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 625, 641.) "A plaintiff who fails to sufficiently plead such facts normally should be permitted to amend his or her complaint to do so." (Ibid.)

As noted above, the Complaint alleges Plaintiffs entered into the warranty contract on 12/11/20 (¶6 of Complaint.) This allegation implies Plaintiffs purchased the vehicle and took possession, on that date. Additionally, the Complaint alleges “Defendant GM committed fraud by allowing the Subject Vehicle to be sold to Plaintiffs without disclosing that the Subject Vehicle and its 8-speed transmission were defective and susceptible to sudden and premature failure.” (¶46 of Complaint.)

Here, the Complaint alleges that “[d]efects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period” and that Defendant knew of the existence of such defects, prior to Plaintiff purchasing the vehicle. (¶11 and ¶47 of Complaint.) The implication from the above allegations is that the defects existed at the time of delivery. Because Plaintiffs are presumed to have knowledge of the wrongful cause of their injury (Grisham, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 638), the applicable statute of limitations began to accrue when they received the vehicle with a defect that could not be conformed to warranty. As the instant action was not filed until 6/24/25, more than four years thereafter, the claim appears barred on its face.

Thereafter, the Complaint simply alleges that delayed discovery and/or tolling apply, in a conclusory manner. (¶23 of Complaint [“To the extent there are any statutes of limitation applicable to Plaintiffs’ claims...the running of the limitation periods have been tolled by, inter alia, the following doctrines or rules: equitable tolling, the discovery rule, the fraudulent concealment rules, equitable estoppel, the repair rule, and/or class action tolling (e.g., the American Pipe rule).”])

Further, Plaintiffs merely allege the wrongful conduct was discovered shortly before the filing of the complaint, “on or about April 8, 2025 when they requested a buyback and/or restitution of the Subject Vehicle from GM...GM failed to provide restitution pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.” (¶24 of Complaint.) Similarly, the specific allegations included within the fraudulent inducement claim, fail to plead delayed discovery. Plaintiffs allege Defendant was well aware of the transmission defects prior to the sale and that Plaintiffs “could not reasonably have been expected to learn or discover of the Vehicle’s Transmission Defect and its potential consequences until well after Plaintiffs purchased the Vehicle.” (¶57(c) of Complaint.) The above, however, does not allege facts which demonstrate “(1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.’” (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 808.)

Based on all the above, the Demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action is SUSTAINED with 15-days leave to amend.