Toler vs FCA US, LLC, et al.

25CV112183: TOLER vs FCA US, LLC, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Demurrer To Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint; filed by FCA US, LLC (Defendant) CRS# 714347536191 in Department 520

Tentative Ruling - 08/19/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson

The Demurrer filed by FCA US, LLC on 03/02/2026 is Overruled.

The Demurrer of Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”) to the Third Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the Second cause of action for Fraudulent Inducement - Concealment. DISCUSSION Second Cause of Action: Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment

To establish facts sufficient to state a cause of action for fraudulent concealment, Plaintiff Teryll Toler (“Plaintiff”) needs to sufficiently allege that: (1) FCA concealed or suppressed a material fact; (2) FCA had a duty to disclose the fact; (3) FCA intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with intent to defraud Plaintiffs; (4) Plaintiff justifiably relied on said fact; and (5) Plaintiff was damaged by the concealment. (Jones v. ConocoPhillips Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1198.)

FCA argues that Plaintiff failed to allege facts to meet the requirements, including that FCA had a duty to disclose, and that the claim is time-barred. For the reasons below and as articulated in the Court’s July 16, 2026 ruling on the prior demurrer, the Court rejects FCA’s argument that FCA had no duty to disclose information to Plaintiff because it did not sell the vehicle directly to Plaintiff and FCA and Plaintiff had no “direct” or fiduciary relationship.

First, Plaintiff alleges that the statute of limitations periods has been tolled by equitable tolling, the discovery rule, the fraudulent concealment rules, equitable estoppel, the repair rule, and/or class action tolling. (TAC ¶ 48.) Plaintiff further alleges that he discovered Defendant’s wrongful conduct shortly before filing the complaint, after FCA’s unsuccessful repair attempts. (Id. at ¶ 49.) In Plaintiff’s Opposition, Plaintiff suggests that an inference can be drawn from the fact that the last repair attempt was in 2024. (Oppo., p. 5:1-5.)

For purposes of a demurrer, Plaintiff adequately pleads facts to support tolling of the statute of limitations. The Demurrer on the grounds of untimeliness is OVERRULED.

Next, for the third element as identified in the prior Order as the key defect, contrary to Defendant’s claim, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged – at this stage – that Defendant intended to defraud Plaintiff by intentionally concealing or suppressing these facts. (Id. at ¶ 79; Reply, pp. 2:23-3:8.)

Thus, Defendant’s Demurrer is OVERRULED. 25CV112183: TOLER vs FCA US, LLC, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Demurrer To Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint; filed by FCA US, LLC (Defendant) CRS# 714347536191 in Department 520

NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on August 20, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on August 19, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.