Demurrer; Motion to Strike
typically should provide the identity and capacity of all individuals who authored, sent, or received each allegedly privileged document, the document's date, a brief description of the document and its contents or subject matter sufficient to determine whether the privilege applies, and the precise privilege or protection asserted"].)
Plaintiff seeks total sanctions of $6,000 (i.e., $3,000 per motion) against Defendant. Plaintiff's counsel testifies that his firm, Ross LLP, would have charged Plaintiff an amount exceeding those sanctions. (Stiglitz Decl., P. 5.) Associate Charles Moore spent 8.0 hours on the motion at $400 per hour (equals $3,200), and Partner Peter Ross expects to spend 3.5 hours preparing for and attending the hearing at $975 per hour (equals $3,412.50). (Ibid.)
The Court has not found circumstances that would make the imposition of sanctions against Defendant unjust. In the Joint Discovery Statements, defense counsel testifies that the motions came as a surprise to him because, at the time they were served, the parties were meeting and conferring regarding supplemental document production. (Bjorgum Decl., P. 2.) However, the documents Defendant stated they would produce were not produced, and Defendant's initial responses were not code compliant. Therefore, the Court finds it proper to impose sanctions against Defendant.
The Court finds the requested sanctions excessive for these motions. The Court shall only impose total sanctions of $4,600 against Defendant for both motions (i.e., 11.5 hours spent on the motions at the billing rate of $400 per hour).
CONCLUSION
The motions to compel are GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide further, code compliant responses within 30 days. A privilege log must be served for documents Defendant withholds on the ground of privilege or other protection. The request for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiff sanctions of $4,600 within 30 days. Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.
Dated this 16th day of July 2026 | | | Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court |
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT BENJAMIN GUTKMECHT, Plaintiff, vs. FCA US, LLC, et al., Defendants. |)))
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?”
)))))))) | CASE NO.: 25STCV18918 [TENTATIVE] ORDER SUSTAINING DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE Dept. 506 8:30 a.m. July 16, 2026 |
On June 30, 2025, Plaintiff Benjamin Gutkmecht filed this action against Defendant FCA US, LLC arising from Plaintiff's purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle. On October 13, 2025, Defendant filed a demurrer to the sixth causes of action, and a motion to strike punitive damages.
DISCUSSION
A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context, accepting the alleged facts as true. (Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406.)
A. Plaintiff's Sixth Cause of Action Fails to Plead a Duty to Disclose
Defendant argues that the sixth cause of action for Fraudulent Inducement - Concealment does not allege a direct transactional relationship giving rise to a duty to disclose. Fraud based on concealment requires that "(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." (Bigler-Engler v. Breg, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 276, 310-311 (Bigler-Engler).)
"Even under the strict rules of common law pleading, one of the canons was that less particularity is required when the facts lie more in the knowledge of the opposite party." (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1384.) An essential element of intentional concealment includes the duty to disclose, which must be based upon a transaction, or a special relationship, between plaintiff and defendant. (Id. at p. 314.)
"There are 'four circumstances in which nondisclosure or concealment may constitute actionable fraud: (1) when the defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff; (2) when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff; (3) when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff; and (4) when the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses some material facts.'" (Id. at p. 311.)
"[O]ther than the first instance, in which there must be a fiduciary relationship between the parties, 'the other three circumstances in which nondisclosure may be actionable presuppose[] the existence of some other relationship between the plaintiff and defendant in which a duty to disclose can arise. . . . "[W]here material facts are known to one party and not to the other, failure to disclose them is not actionable fraud unless there is some relationship between the parties which gives rise to a duty to disclose such known facts." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Hoffman v. 162 North Wolfe LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1187 (Hoffman).)
"Such a transaction must necessarily arise from direct dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant; it cannot arise between the defendant and the public at large." (Bigler-Engler, supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at p. 312.)
Plaintiff does not allege facts showing the existence of a relationship between the parties that gives rise to a duty to disclose facts. (See Hoffman, supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 1187.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant had superior and exclusive knowledge of the engine defect and the defect was not known to or reasonably discoverable by Plaintiff. (Complaint P. 22.) There are no facts showing that Defendant's knowledge was exclusive. Indeed, Plaintiff alleges that there were prior customer complaints, suggesting that the knowledge was in fact public. (Complaint P. 67.) The demurrer is sustained on this ground.
MOTION TO STRIKE
The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 436, subds. (a)-(b).)
Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages. A plaintiff can recover punitive damages in tort cases where "the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice." (Civ. Code, Sec. 3294, subd. (a).) "The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. [Citation.] Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim. [Citation.]" (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166, fn. omitted.) Additionally, a plaintiff is not entitled to recover both punitive damages and civil penalties under Song-Beverly. (Troensegaard v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 218, 228.)
The Court concurrently sustains the demurrer to the fraud cause of action, and there are no other specific facts showing oppression or malice. The motion to strike is granted.
CONCLUSION
The demurrer is SUSTAINED. The motion to strike is GRANTED. At the hearing, Plaintiff should be prepared to explain what additional facts will be pleaded and exactly how any amendments can remedy the deficiencies of the Complaint without making it a sham pleading. The Court will decide at the hearing whether to grant leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.
Dated this 16th day of July 2026 | | | Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court | Case Number: 25STCV19414 Hearing Date: July 16, 2026 Dept: 506 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA