| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Date |
|---|
Demurrer
on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.
Background
Facts Plaintiff, Claudia Emilia Perez filed this action against Defendants, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Walter Timmons Enterprises, Inc. for violations of the Song-Beverly Act and negligent repair.
Prior Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings On 2/05/26, the Court heard Timmons’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, wherein Timmons contended the claim against it for negligent repair was barred by the economic loss rule. The Court agreed and granted the motion. The Court granted leave to amend if and only if Plaintiff could allege an injury that occurred as a result of Defendant’s negligence.
Demurrer to First Amended Complaint a. FAC Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on 2/13/26. Timmons filed this demurrer a week later, on 2/20/26. The demurrer is scheduled for hearing only a week prior to trial, but there is no rule of procedure that precludes this timeline.
b. Demurrer Timmons continues to contend Plaintiff’s action against it is barred by the economic loss rule. Plaintiff argues it is not.
a. Economic Loss Rule Under the economic loss rule, a plaintiff may not recover in tort for negligently inflicted purely economic losses, unless the defendant's injury-causing conduct violated a duty independent of the contract and the defendant's conduct caused physical damage or personal injury. (Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 17 Cal.5th 1, 20, 26, 44; Southern California Gas Leak Cases (2019) 7 Cal.5th 391, 395, 402; Sacramento Regional Transit Dist. v. Grumman Flxible (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 289, 298-300; see Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988.) In other words, there is “no tort duty to guard against purely economic losses.” (Southern California Gas Leak Cases, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 398.) “Economic loss consists of??? “damages for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the defective product or consequent loss of profits -- without any claim of personal injury or damages to other property....”???? (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc., supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 988; see
Extracted by Gemini Flash 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
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.
b.
Analysis
The analysis re: this amended complaint vs. Plaintiff’s original complaint does not meaningfully differ. The Court previously held: The Complaint does not allege any injury to any person arising from the negligence-based cause of action, and Plaintiff concedes as much in opposition. Rather, in opposition, Plaintiff’citing North American Chemical Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 764?argues that the “economic loss rule does not bar all cases involving the negligent performance of services.” (Opp., 14:12-13.)
Contrary to its name, the professional services exception does not apply to everything that seems like “professional services.” As explained in Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2022) 12 Cal.5 th 905, 922, also relied on by Plaintiff, this professional services exception is a “major departure from traditional principles of contract law’ that applies only in very limited circumstances in which one party to the contract has “specialized knowledge, labor, or skill’ that is “predominantly mental or intellectual.” (Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., supra, 12 Cal.5th at 933; see also North Counties Engineering, Inc. v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 902, 931.)
For example, in Sheen, the Supreme Court declined to allow tort recovery in the loan modification context and held the economic loss rule applied because “Plaintiff’s claim here arises from, and is not independent of, the mortgage contract.” (12 Cal.5th at 924.)
Here, Plaintiff has not alleged a special relationship, intentional misconduct, physical injury, fraud, an insurance or professional services contract, or wrongful discharge that would cause the economic loss rule not to apply. (Southern California Gas Leak Cases, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 400; Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 905, 929 [“Specifically, we have allowed for tort recovery in some cases involving insurance policies and contracts for professional services.”] [emphasis added]; Robinson Helicopter Co., supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 989-990.)
The above analysis remains equally true after Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint. She did not materially change her allegations, and merely regurgitates the arguments previously rejected in her opposition to the demurrer. The demurrer is therefore sustained without leave to amend. Timmons is ordered to give