Gabriel Oliva, et al. v. FCA US, LLC, et al.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 400) September 3, 2026 DEPARTMENT 400 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Motion- Other Award of Costs The Court tenders the following tentative decision in the matter Mehran Mottahedeh v. Howard Sommers Towing, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court case number 20STCV14309, set for hearing on September 3, 2026.

Howard Sommers Towing, Inc. (Defendant) moves for an award of costs in the amount of $49,481.16. Mehran Mottahedeh (Plaintiff) opposes the motion to the extent that it seeks an award of costs greater than $25,000. Defendant's motion is continued.

The parties dispute whether they reached an agreement limiting the amount of costs owed by Plaintiff to $25,000. A verdict was entered in Defendant's favor on March 12, 2024. (Dorenfeld Decl. P. 3.) Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 10, 2024. (Id. P. 4.) On July 9, 2025, counsel conferred regarding the possibility of Plaintiff abandoning his appeal in exchange for a reduction in the amount of costs sought by Defendant. (Id. P. 8.) Plaintiff presents evidence of communications showing a confirmation by Defendant's counsel that the costs request would be lowered to $25,000 if the appeal was abandoned. (Id. P.P. 9-13.) Plaintiff then abandoned the appeal. (Id. P. 14.)

Defendant argues that these discussions constituted mere preliminary negotiations. If an agreement was indeed reached between the parties, limiting the amount of recoverable costs to $25,000 would be proper. However, the evidence presented is lacking. Plaintiff has not provided any email demonstrating their initial offer or their final acceptance. Nor has Defendant offered any evidence of the purported agreement having been rejected. Thus, the Court continues the present motion and requests that the parties submit further evidence of their communications so it may determine whether a contract was formed.

Conclusion: Defendant's motion is continued. The parties are ordered to submit further evidence of their negotiations within 30 days.

Case Number: 24STCV29592 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: 400 Motion for Judgment The Court tenders the following tentative decision in the matter Gabriel Oliva, et al. v. FCA US, LLC, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court case number 24STCV29592, set for hearing on September 3, 2026.

FCA US LLC (Defendant) moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Gabriel and Lyseth Oliva's (collectively, Plaintiffs) sixth cause of action for fraudulent inducement via concealment contained within their complaint. Defendant's motion is granted. Plaintiffs are granted 20 days' leave to amend.

A.

Legal Standard

A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made after the time to demur has expired and an answer has been filed. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 438, subd. (f).) A motion by a defendant may be made on the grounds that the "complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant." (Id., Sec. 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii).) A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer but is made after the time for demurrer has expired. Except as provided by statute, the rules governing demurrers apply. (Cloud v.

Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) Like a general demurrer, "ordinarily, a [motion for judgment on the pleadings] does not lie as to a portion of a cause of action, and if any part of a cause of action is properly pleaded, the [motion] will be overruled." (Fire Insurance Exchange v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.) In considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, courts consider whether properly pled factual allegations -- assumed to be true and liberally construed -- are sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Stone Street Capital, LLC v.

Cal. State Lottery Commission (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 109, 116.) Courts may also consider facts subject to judicial notice. (Tung v. Chicago Title Co. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 734, 759.)

B.

Discussion

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' sixth cause of action for fraudulent inducement via concealment is barred by the relevant statute of limitations. Actions for fraud must be brought within three years of the "discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 338, subd. (d).) In a fraudulent inducement case, a plaintiff discovers the facts constituting fraud when they learn that a provision of the contract was fraudulent.

Here, Plaintiffs allege that they discovered defects in their vehicle within the express warranty period. (Compl. P. 15.) Thus, Plaintiffs allege to have discovered facts constituting fraud between their purchase of the subject vehicle on June 13, 2021, and the filing of the present case on November 12, 2024. Thus, a statute of limitations defense appears on the face of the complaint: Plaintiffs' pleading is ambiguous and leaves open the possibility that they discovered the alleged fraud as early as June 13, 2021, which would have required them to bring their fraud claim by June 13, 2024. Thus, the claim would be barred by the three-year statute of limitations. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.

C.

Conclusion

The Court grants Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs are granted 20 days' leave to amend. | Home -->)" -->