DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV-05313·merced·Civil·Fraud
Hearing about 2 months agoDemurrer SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; Motion to Strike MOOT

Brett Jones vs General Motors, LLC

Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint; Motion to Strike

Hearing date
Jul 15, 2026
Department
8
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffBrett Jones
DefendantGeneral Motors, LLC

Ruling

25CV-05313 Brett Jones vs General Motors, LLC

Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND on the basis of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Here, Plaintiff does not allege enough facts to support a fraudulent inducement concealment cause of action. For example and not exhaustive, the complaint (1) fails to identify the specific selling dealership that is alleged to be GM’s authorized dealership, (2) fails to allege sufficient facts identifying the specific marketing statements that were misleading and that were relied upon by Plaintiff, (3) fails to allege sufficient facts regarding dealership personnel, conversations, or content of omissions at the point of sale, and (4) fails to allege sufficient facts tying the alleged authorized dealership’s specific acts to GM beyond conveying information from GM to prospective purchasers.

Plaintiff is to file an amended complaint within ten (10) days of this court’s order.

Motion to Strike

The court notes that on July 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s April 20, 2026, motion to strike. On July 8, 2026, Defendant filed a reply to the opposition. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on May 18, 2026, rendering the April 20, 2026, demurrer and motion to strike moot. Defendant then filed a demurer to the first amended complaint on June 9, 2026. However, Defendant did not file a new motion to strike based on the first amended complaint. As such, there is no proper motion to strike pending before the court.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share