Jacqueline Ramirez vs. General Motors, LLC

While the Court has overruled the demurrer based on the above grounds, the Court, in its discretion, will stay the demurrer based on the economic loss rule and the accompanying motion to strike pending the California Supreme Court's ruling on the question certified to it by Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (9th Cir. Dec. 6, 2021) 2021 U.S.App. LEXIS 35874.

(2022 Order, p. 3.)

The Court further directed counsel to “place the demurrer regarding the economic loss rule back on calendar for hearing after the California Supreme Court issues an opinion in Rattagan.” (2022 Order, p. 3.)

The California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 17 Cal.5th 1 on August 22, 2024.

Now, more than three years after this Court’s September 15, 2022 Order (“2022 Order”) and approximately one year after the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Rattagan, Defendant again demurs to Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action. Defendant’s present demurrer is made on the following grounds:

1. The Fifth cause of action, for Fraudulent Inducement- Concealment, is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e)) 2. The Fifth cause of action, for Fraudulent Inducement- Concealment, fails to state facts sufficient to establish the fraud cause of action. (Id.)

3. The Fifth cause of action, for Fraudulent Inducement- Concealment, fails to allege a transactional relationship giving rise to a duty to disclose. (Id.)

(Notice of Amended Demurrer at 2:18-23.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00309302-CU-BC-GDS: Jacqueline Ramirez vs. General Motors, LLC 08/05/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 54

Notably, none of the grounds on which Defendant presently demurrers are based on the economic loss rule. Instead, each of the grounds on which Defendant demurrers on were expressly considered and rejected by the Court in its 2022 Order.

Defendant provides no argument (or any related legal authority) as to why it is entitled to demurrer on grounds already ruled upon by the court. In fact, Defendant’s moving papers almost completely fail to acknowledge its previous demurrer. Indeed, Defendant’s memorandum of points and authorities makes no mention of Defendant’s previous demurrer or this Court’s 2022 Order.[1] The single acknowledgement of the fact that Defendant has already demurred to the FAC’s fifth cause of action is in Kyle Roybal’s (Defendant’s counsel) declaration filed with the moving papers. Here, Mr. Roybal avers:

Previously the Court stayed it’s ruling on [Defendant’s] Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint while the Rattigan [sic] case was up for review and directed [Defendant] to re-file its Demurrer once the case was decided. Prior to filing GM’s Demurrer, this office met and conferred telephonically with Plaintiff’s counsel on Wednesday, February 26, 2025, in an attempt to resolve the issues we had with Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint in light of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Rattigan [sic], but unfortunately, were unsuccessful in our attempts.

(Roybal Decl., ¶ 2.)

The statement in Mr. Roybal’s declaration misconstrues the Court’s 2022 Order to the extent it asserts that the Court directed Defendant to re-file its entire demurrer once Rattagan was decided. Rather, as previously discussed, the Court’s 2022 Order expressly stated that, “[w]hile the Court has overruled the demurrer based on the above grounds the Court will stay the demurrer based on the economic loss rule ” (2022 Order, at p. 3 (emphasis added.) The Court further stated that “[c]ounsel are directed to place the demurrer regarding the economic loss rule back on calendar for hearing after the California Supreme Court issues an opinion in Rattagan.” (2022 Order, at p. 3 (emphasis added).)

In other words, the Court only stayed its ruling on Defendant’s demurrer in part—i.e. in regards to whether or not Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is barred by the economic loss rule. The Court’s direction to Defendant’s counsel was also limited in that it directed counsel to place only the demurrer regarding the economic loss rule back on calendar after the California Supreme Court issued its ruling. It did

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00309302-CU-BC-GDS: Jacqueline Ramirez vs. General Motors, LLC 08/05/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 54

not direct, or otherwise invite, Defendant to renew its entire demurrer as to the fifth cause of action on grounds on which the Court had already ruled.

Thus, to the extent that Defendant was permitted to place its demurrer regarding the economic loss rule back on calendar, the present demurrer is overruled as it is not based on this ground.

In regards to the grounds for demurrer Defendant did notice, the demurrer is overruled in its entirety as these grounds were previously overruled in the Court’s 2022 Order. A defendant cannot demur on the same grounds as a previous demurrer that was overruled. (County of El Dorado v. Superior Court (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 620, 639.) When a demurrer is overruled, the demurring party has three options: (1) seek reconsideration of the order overruling the demurrer (2) seek an extraordinary writ, (3) file an answer within the time allowed. (Thomas et al., Cal. Civ. Courtroom Handbook & Desktop Ref. (2025) § 11:30.) Accordingly, there is no basis (and Defendant certainly does not argue any) to entertain another demurrer to the fifth cause of action on essentially identical grounds which were already rejected in the Court’s previous 2022 Order.

To the extent that Defendant intended this motion to be construed as motion for reconsideration, such a motion would also be denied as Defendant failed to comply with the strict requirements for such a motion, including filing the motion within 10 days of the order denying the prior motion and supporting it with any “new or different facts, circumstances or law.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 subd., (b).) Thus, if construed as a motion for reconsideration, the motion must be denied.[2]

Lastly, the Court notes there is no opposition to this demurrer in the Court’s file. Curiously, however, Defendant’s reply asserts that Plaintiff filed her opposition on July 24, 2025. (Reply at p. 13-15.) However, whether or not an opposition was properly filed and served is immaterial to the disposition of the outcome of this demurrer.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s current demurrer is OVERRULED in its entirety.

If not already done, Defendant is to file and serve its Answer to the FAC by August 19, 2025..

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00309302-CU-BC-GDS: Jacqueline Ramirez vs. General Motors, LLC 08/05/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 54

Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

[1] The Court notes that Defendant arguably alluded to the procedural history of this case when it elected to title its demurrer its “Amended Demurrer to Plaintiff’s FAC.” (Notice of Amended Demurrer at p. 2:14 [emphasis added].) [2] In this regard, the Court observes that Defendant cites to Rattagan to support its argument

that Plaintiff fails to allege a transactional relationship that gives rise to a duty to disclose. (See, e.g., Moving MPA at 12:19-26.) Rattagan held that, as a matter of first impression, “a plaintiff may assert a cause of action for fraudulent concealment based on conduct occurring in the course of a contractual relationship, if the elements of the claim can be established independently of the parties’ contractual rights and obligations and the tortious conduct exposes the plaintiff to a risk of harm beyond the reasonable contemplation of the parties when they entered into the contract.” (Rattagan v.

Uber Technologies, Inc., supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 45.) Thus, while Rattagan decided an issue of first impression and thus could constitute a change in law, Defendant does not argue that any portion of Rattagan constituted a change in law for the purpose of its argument that the Plaintiff was required to allege a transactional relationship giving rise to a duty to disclose. Rather, Defendant states that Rattagan recently “reaffirmed” certain legal principles. (See, e.g., Moving MPA at 12:19-22.) Nor can the Court identify any way in which Rattagan would alter the Court’s 2022 Order finding that Defendant’s argument that that the fifth cause of action fails because Defendant had no duty to disclose any information, was unpersuasive.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00309302-CU-BC-GDS: Jacqueline Ramirez vs. General Motors, LLC 08/05/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 54

with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.