Matthew LaPrade v. General Motors, LLC

"The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 436.)

To succeed on a motion to strike punitive damages, it must be said as a matter of law that the alleged behavior was so vile, base, or contemptible that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. (See Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1228-29.)

Civil Code section 3294 provides that punitive damages are available in non-contract actions where defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud, defined as follows: 1. "Malice" means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. 2. "Oppression" means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights. 3. "Fraud" means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. (Civ. Code, Sec. 3294, subd. (c).)

The Court has determined that Plaintiff's first, second, fourth, and fifth causes of action survive demurrer. The facts supporting these causes of action support Plaintiff's request for punitive damages. For this reason, the Court shall not strike paragraphs 40, 51, 62, 79, 90, and Prayer for Relief, paragraph 5. The Court shall strike paragraphs 73 and 98.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' demurrer to Plaintiff's first, second, fourth and fifth causes of action is OVERRULED. Defendants' demurrer to Plaintiff's third and sixth causes of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. Plaintiff has twenty days to file and serve an amended complaint. If Plaintiff determines Plaintiff will not file an amended complaint, Plaintiff is to notify Defendants so that Defendants can file and serve an answer to the SAC. Defendants' Motion to Strike is GRANTED in part. The Court will strike paragraphs 73 and 98 with leave to amend. The motion is otherwise denied.

Case Number: 25STCV07953 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: 316

BACKGROUND

This case is a lemon law matter. On October 1, 2025, Plaintiff Matthew LaPrade filed a complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC. The complaint alleges five causes of action stemming from Plaintiff's purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle. On March 24, 2026, the Court issued a Minute Order sustaining the demurrer to Plaintiff's fourth and fifth causes of action. On June 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings. On August 21, 2026, Defendant filed an opposition. No reply has been filed.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Proceedings is DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

"Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency." (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) Trial judges have inherent powers to manage and fashion procedures to control litigation to ensure the orderly administration of justice. (See Cottle v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1376-79.)

DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff seeks to stay this action pending the Second District Court of Appeal's resolution of Price v. General Motors (B353231, app. pending). According to Plaintiff, this case will decide whether a manufacturer's post-filing election into the Song-Beverly Act's new procedural regime can retroactively time-bar a complaint that was already on file when the new statutes of repose and limitations took effect. (Motion, p. 3:11-14.)

The Court will not stay this action pending the Price appeal. The Price appeal was filed on February 11, 2026. (See Lister Decl., Exh. C.) Given the usual timeline of an appeal, there is not likely to be an appellate decision until well into 2027. The Court finds that it is unreasonable to stay this action for many months pending the outcome of an appeal in a separate case. Furthermore, Plaintiff will have the ability to appeal if the action is not stayed and the Price appeal comes out contrary to the Court's ruling in this case. The Court does not find that it is in the interests of justice and judicial efficiency to stay this proceeding.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Proceedings is DENIED. | Home