DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2025-01529215·orange·Civil·Consumer Protection
Hearing in 2 daysDemurrer OVERRULED as to 1st, 4th, 5th causes of action; SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to 2nd, 3rd causes of action. Motion to Strike GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Ahmad v. Laguna Niguel Hyundai

Demurrer to Amended Complaint; Motion to Strike Amended Complaint

Hearing date
Aug 31, 2026
Department
N14
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffYana Ahmad
DefendantLaguna Niguel Hyundai LLC

Ruling

# Case Name Tentative Ruling

102 Ahmad v. Laguna DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT Niguel Hyundai, 2025- MOTION TO STRIKE AMENDED COMPLAINT 01529215 Defendant Laguna Niguel Hyundai LLC demurs to the (1) first cause of action for violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, (2) second cause of action for intentional misrepresentation, (3) third cause of action for concealment, (4) fourth cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, and (5) fifth cause of action for violations of the Unfair Competition Law. Defendant also moves to strike Plaintiff’s allegations related to punitive damages.

Plaintiff Yana Ahmad opposes both motions.

The demurrer is OVERRULED as to the causes of action for violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Unfair Competition Law. The complaint states sufficient facts to support each of these claims.

The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the second cause of action for intentional misrepresentation and third cause of action for concealment. The allegations regarding the intentional misrepresentations and concealments are not sufficiently specific in that Plaintiff fails to state who made the misrepresentations and omissions and by what means such misrepresentations and omissions were made.

For the same reasons, the Motion to Strike is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Defendant to give notice.

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