| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Demurrer
earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.’” (Fox, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 808.) "When a plaintiff relies on a theory of fraudulent concealment, delayed accrual, equitable tolling, or estoppel to save a cause of action that otherwise appears on its face to be time-barred, he or she must specifically plead facts which, if proved, would support the theory." " (Mills v. Forestex Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 625, 641.)
Here, the FAC contains general allegations regarding tolling yet lacks sufficient factual detail. (See FAC at ¶¶34-35) The 6th cause of action is premised on the allegation that Ford concealed transmission problems from the plaintiffs. However, there are essentially no specific facts pled as to tolling. Instead, Plaintiff asserts the conclusionary statement that “Plaintiff discovered Defendant's wrongful conduct alleged herein shortly before the filing of the complaint.” (FAC ¶35) Plaintiff does not state what was discovered and when. For example, the FAC alleges plaintiff discovered problems with the transmission on July 1, 2021 and brought the vehicle in for repair. (FAC ¶12) However, that was more than 3 years before filing the complaint.
As pled, plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently plead tolling of the statute of limitations and therefore the Demurrer is SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.
Further, Ford’s argument under the economic loss rule (the “ELR”) fails here. Rattagan did not address claims of fraudulent inducement by concealment in the Song-Beverly context. (Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 17 Cal.5th 1, 41, fn. 12.) In contrast, Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828 does address such claims in this context. After Rattagan was decided, review of Dhital was dismissed. Dhital thus controls here. Under Dhital, fraudulent inducement by concealment claims are not barred by the ELR. (Id. at 843.) The Demurrer, to the extent it is based on the ELR, thus fails here.
Where the Demurrer has been SUSTAINED, plaintiffs are granted 14 days leave to amend.
Ford shall give notice.
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?”
11. Richards v. General Motors, LLC 25-1469068 Before the Court is the Demurrer filed by Defendant General Motors, LLC (“GM”) on 2/19/26, directed to the First Amended Complaint which was belatedly filed by Plaintiffs Brad Richards and Ruth Preston (“Plaintiffs”) on 4/16/26. The Demurrer is OVERRULED. The Demurrer is directed solely to the Fifth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Inducement- Concealment. But the FAC now adequately asserts that Plaintiffs purchased the subject vehicle from GM’s authorized retail dealership. (FAC ¶ 9.)
That is sufficient to allege a relationship requiring GM to disclose known defects. (See Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828, 844.) The allegations as to the alleged defect in their vehicle (FAC ¶¶ 13, 14) adequately comport with their allegations as to the known “Transmission Defect” in these vehicles, under Dhital. The Demurrer is therefore OVERRULED.
GM is to file its Answer within 10 days.
Plaintiff is to give notice of this ruling.
12. Waypoint Aviation Services v. Transcontinental Air LLC 25-1495879 (Moot-FAC filed) 13. Soteropoulos v. FCA US LLC 25-1492568 (Moot-FAC filed) 14. Glickman v. Krolikowski 19-1049771 Before the Court are the Demurrer and Motion to Strike filed on 12/15/25 by Defendants Charles Krolikowski and Newmeyer & Dillion LLP (“Defendants”), directed to the Eighth Cause of Action in the Fourth Amended Complaint (the “Fourth AC”) filed on 11/13/25 by Plaintiff William Glickman (“Plaintiff”).
The Demurrer is OVERRULED. The Demurrer asserts that the claim under C.C.P. § 496 fails to state sufficient facts to support the cause of action. However, although not all commercial or consumer disputes alleging that a defendant obtained money or property through fraud, misrepresentation, or breach of a contractual promise will suffice, a claim is stated where facts are also alleged to infer careful planning and deliberation reflecting the requisite criminal intent. (Siry Investment, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour (2022) 13 Cal.5th 333, 361-362; Johnson v.
Connie, LLC (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 850, 855-856.) Plaintiff alleges here that the Defendants repeatedly made knowingly false representations to Plaintiff to obtain fees, under circumstances reflecting careful planning, deliberation, and concealment, and thus showed criminal intent. (Fourth AC, ¶¶ 34, 36, 109-117, 130, 139-143, 189-193, and 369-371.) The claim is thus adequately pled to withstand Demurrer. Defendants’ assertions that the claim lacks merit are beyond the scope of Demurrer.
The Motion to Strike is DENIED. The motion asserts that the sums claimed as damages on the Eighth Cause of Action are grossly excessive. But Defendants have not shown that the dollar value for what was allegedly stolen is necessarily the only basis to claim actual damages here. (See Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1, 18–19 [disapproved on other grounds in Kwikset Corp. v. Sup. Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310].) Whether the specific sums claimed as damages are justifiable is beyond the scope of the motion.
Defendants are to file their Answer to the Fourth AC within 10 days.
Plaintiff is to give notice of these rulings. 15.
16.
17. 18.
19.
20. 21.