| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Defendant Nissan North America Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint
Gerard Feliciano Jr. v. Nissan North America Inc.
Hearing Date: April 24, 2026
MOTION: Defendant Nissan North America Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, Nissan North America Inc. (“Defendant”) demurs to Gerard Feliciano, Jr.’s (“Plaintiff”) First Cause of Action for Breach of Implied Warranty based upon a failure to allege the warranty claim within the statute of limitations and as uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible. Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 and Code of Civil Procedure Code section 430.10 based upon a lack of standing and failure to plead any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices committed by Defendant and economic loss to Plaintiff.
BACKGROUND: Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges causes of action for breach of express and implied warranties related to their purchase of a 2019 Nissan Leaf (“Vehicle”) on July 14, 2019. DISCUSSION: Sadly, the meet and confer requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 have been largely ignored by the Defendant. Given the additional deficiencies in this motion, discussed below, this failure is unsurprising. The First Cause of Action in the Complaint is entitled: “Violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act” and cites to the federal statutes.
Complaint, pg.
3. Nonetheless, Defendant’s entire argument related to First Cause of Action is premised on a Song-Beverly Act, a California statutory claim related primarily to implied warranty claims. Defendant’s demurrer goes on to refer to California statutes. It also refers to “FCA”, a defendant not involved in this litigation. Demurrer, pg. 7, line 2. Thus, the statute of limitations argument that is presented makes little sense. Further, the “Legal Argument” section on page 6 of the Demurrer is entitled “Plaintiff’s Breach of Implied Warranty Cause of Action is Barred by the Applicable Statute of Limitations.”
Defendant seems to be ignoring that the First Cause of Action also includes an express warranty claim. Complaint, paragraph 17. Demurrers do no lie as to only parts of causes of action, where some valid claim is alleged. Poizner v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal. App 4th 97, 119. Defendant’s Demurrer to the First Cause of Action is OVERRULED. Defendant’s argument related to the Second Cause of Action is that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) due to the requirement to plead economic loss as a result of Defendant’s unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices.
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?”
A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under these statutes must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619.) The Complaint does allege that the unlawful conduct “described previously and in greater detail” constitutes the unlawful allegations, (Complaint, ¶ 30). Specifically the Complaint alleges intentional placement of defective components into the stream of commerce and the Defendant “knew the components .. suffered from defects which substantially affected [its] value and safety” thus satisfying the “unlawful” prong. Similarly, the Complaint contains sufficient allegations to establish the “unfairness” prong.
With regard to the “fraudulent” and “reliance” prongs, Plaintiff must show that a misrepresentation was an immediate cause of the injury producing conduct. In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 326. Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled causation and reliance. Defendant’s Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action is SUSTAINED, with leave to amend within 30 days.
NOTE RE: TENTATIVE RULING This tentative ruling becomes the court’s order, and no hearing shall be held unless one of the parties contests it by complying with Rule 3.1308 of the California Rules of Court and Monterey County Local Rule 7.9. Those parties wishing to present an oral argument must notify all other parties and the Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing; otherwise, NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED, AND THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER OF THE COURT AND THE HEARING VACATED. You must notify the court by emailing TentativeRulings@monterey.courts.ca.gov or by telephoning the Calendar Department at (831) 647-5800, extension 3040, before 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing.