Demurrer to the fourth cause of action
“[I]n deciding whether there is a ‘party prevailing on the contract,’ the trial court is to compare the relief awarded on the contract claim or claims with the parties' demands on those same claims and their litigation objectives as disclosed by the pleadings, trial briefs, opening statements, and similar sources. The prevailing party determination is to be made only upon final resolution of the contract claims and only by ‘a comparison of the extent to which each party ha [s] succeeded and failed to succeed in its contentions.’ [Citation.]” (Hsu v. Abbara (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863, 876.)
Here, the defendants have not achieved a dispositive victory. While the case was dismissed because of plaintiff’s failure to appear, plaintiff can re-file the action as the dismissal was without prejudice. It therefore cannot be said there has been a “final resolution of the contract claims.” (Hsu at 876)
Accordingly, because defendants have not established they are the prevailing party under Section 1717, the motion for attorney’s fees is DENIED.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 2 Kopenhefer v. The demurrer filed by defendant Ford Motor Company (Ford) Ford Motor directed to the fourth cause of action in the Third Amended Company Complaint (TAC) of plaintiff Ben Kopenhefer (Plaintiff) is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.
Ford is to file an answer to the TAC within 20 days.
Ford demurs to the fourth cause of action for fraudulent inducement – concealment. “The required elements for fraudulent concealment are (1) concealment or suppression of a material fact; (2) by a defendant with a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff; (3) the defendant intended to defraud the plaintiff by intentionally concealing or suppressing the fact; (4) the plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he or she did if he or she had known of the concealed or suppressed fact; and (5) plaintiff sustained damage as a result of the concealment or suppression of fact.” (Hambrick v. Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 124, 162.)
Fraud claims must be pled with particularity. Every element of the cause of action for fraud must be alleged in full, factually and specifically. The policy of liberal construction of pleading will not be invoked to sustain a pleading defective in any material respect. (Wilhelm v. Pray, Price, Williams & Russell (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1324, 1332.)
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?”
“The requirement of specificity in a fraud action against a corporation requires the plaintiff to 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.) “[T]he requirement that fraud must be pleaded with specificity applies equally to a cause of action for
fraud and deceit based on concealment.” (Cansino v. Bank of Am. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1472.)
The fraud claim is based on allegations that Ford concealed from Plaintiff that Plaintiff’s vehicle suffered from the “Transmission Defect.” As Ford points out, the TAC still does not allege that Plaintiff’s vehicle experienced any of the purported symptoms related to the defect, beyond the vague allegation that “Defendant's technicians inspected the Vehicle, and indicated that the transmission required attention.”
The cases cited by Plaintiff are inapposite in that the plaintiffs’ vehicles in those cases each suffered from the undisclosed alleged transmission defects. See Avila v. Ford Motor Co. (N.D. Cal. 2026) 821 F.Supp.3d 1113, 1117 [“Avila's F-150 had a 10R80 automatic transmission, which he says had problems including “harsh shifting, clutch engagement issues, and material debris.”]; Dhital v. Nissan N. Am., Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828, 833 [“plaintiffs took the car to an authorized Nissan repair facility because of transmission problems, including stalling, jerking, and lack of power”]; Ford Motor Warranty Cases,(2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324, 1330 [“Plaintiffs experienced problems with the transmissions in their Ford Focus and Fiesta model vehicles.”].
Plaintiff has had three opportunities to amend the fraud cause of action but still has failed to state a viable claim. Accordingly, the demurrer to the fourth cause of action for fraudulent inducement – concealment is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. (Heritage Pac. Fin'l, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 994 [court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to amend where, despite ample opportunity, plaintiff failed to demonstrate it could cure defect].)
Counsel for Ford shall give notice. 3 Martlaro v. The Motion to Reopen Discovery, etc., filed on 4/23/26 by Defendant American American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (“Honda”) is GRANTED. Honda Motor Company, Inc. The Motion demonstrates that Plaintiff Samuel J. Martlaro (“Plaintiff”) designated five experts on 3/16/26, but when depositions were noticed for each, Plaintiff served substantial objections, refused to produce them as noticed, and then failed to confer when asked to do so. (Sadanaga Decl., ¶¶ 2-7, Exs. 1-12.)
Plaintiff does not dispute that Honda is entitled to take the depositions of Plaintiff’s experts, and has failed to justify its conduct in failing to promptly make them available. The Motion is therefore GRANTED. Plaintiff is to make all of the designated experts available for deposition within the next 10 business days, and produce the categories of requested documents for each no later than three business days prior. The parties should be prepared to set specific dates at the time of the hearing.
Honda’s sanctions request is GRANTED, in the amount of $2,524. Objections to the depositions were served on March 26, 2026, but no alternative dates were offered. The following day, Honda