FCA’s demurrer to the first through fourth causes of action on the ground that they are barred by the statute of repose pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 871.20 and 871.21 is OVERRULED.

As to the third and fourth causes of action, section 871.20 plainly states that it applies to a violation of section 1793.2 (b) or (d); it does not state that it applies to a violation of sections 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3) or 1791.

As to the first and second causes of action, in order for GM to rely on sections 871.20 or 871.21, it needs to have “elect[ed] to be governed by this chapter for all actions described in subdivision (a) of Section 871.20 with respect to all of its motor vehicles.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 871.29, subd. (b).) While FCA argues that it is “a manufacturer that has opted into the statute,” there is no such allegation in the FAC, and FCA neither demonstrates that it made any such election, nor requests judicial notice of any election, thereby failing to establish that either section 870.20 or 871.21 applies to the FAC. (See Richtek USA, Inc. v. uPI Semiconductor Corp. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 651, 658 (Sixth District stating that “[w]here, as here, [plaintiffs] demur on the primary ground that the action is time-barred under the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations... the defect must clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint”); see also Committee for Sound Water & Land Development v.

City of Seaside (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 389, 400 (Sixth District stating that “to be raised by demurrer, the defect must clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint”).)

Citing to Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, FCA argues that the sixth cause of action of the FAC “simply asserts conclusory allegations that FCA US concealed acts without naming individuals, providing details about representations or specifying dates.”

However, while FCA is correct that, as general rule, each element in fraud cause of action must be pleaded with specificity (see Lazar v. Super. Ct. (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645

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

Other rulings by Rafael Sivilla-Jones Judge Rafael Sivilla-Jones dossier Other Demurrer in SANTACLARA All SANTACLARA County rulings Other Lemon Law cases

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

(stating that “[i]n California, fraud must be pled specifically”)), this specific pleading requirement is significantly relaxed in the case of fraud by concealment or omission because, as one court has explained, “[h]ow does one show ‘how’ and ‘by what means’ something didn’t happen, or ‘when’ it never happened, or ‘where’ it never happened?” (

Additionally, one of the purposes of the specificity requirement is to provide “notice to the defendant, to furnish the defendant with certain definite charges which can be intelligently met.” (Tenet Healthsystem Desert, Inc. v. Blue Cross of California (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 821, 838.)

Therefore, when “it appears from the nature of the allegations that the defendant must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy, even under strict rules of common law pleading, one of the canons was that less particularity is required when the facts lie more in the knowledge of the opposite party....” (Id.; see also Bushell v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 915, 931 (stating that “plaintiffs did not have to specify the ... personnel who prepared these documents because that information is uniquely within ... [defendant’s] knowledge”).)

It is clearly not necessary for Plaintiff to allege the identity of persons who allegedly concealed facts, as that information is uniquely within FCA’s knowledge. (See Alfaro, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp.1384-1385 (stating that “[t]o afford defendants adequate notice of plaintiffs’ claims, it does not appear necessary to require... plaintiffs to allege each occasion on which an agent of either defendant could have disclosed the restrictive deed... [s]urely defendants have records of their dealings with the plaintiffs... ‘[t]hose details... are properly the subject of discovery, not demurrer”).)

As to the lack of an allegation of “what specifically [was] said or wr[itten], or when the representation was made,” FCA fails to understand that “[t]his statement of the rule... is intended to apply to affirmative misrepresentations.” (Alfaro, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p.1384 (also stating that “it is harder to apply this rule to a case of simple nondisclosure... [h]ow does one show ‘how’ and ‘by what means’ something didn't happen, or ‘when’ it never happened, or ‘where’ it never happened?”)

Moreover, in Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828, the court concluded that allegations that the 2013 Nissan Sentra contained a defective transmission, that Nissan had exclusive knowledge of the defect and concealed and failed to disclose that information, that Nissan intended to deceive plaintiffs by such concealment, that plaintiffs would not have purchased the vehicle had they known of the defects and that plaintiffs suffered damages in the form of money paid to purchase the car, were sufficient to state a cause of action for fraudulent concealment. (Id. at p.844.)

Here, the FAC contains similar allegations regarding the subject vehicle’s transmission (see FAC, ¶¶ 13-51, 80-87); the sixth cause of action alleges facts with sufficient particularity.

Citing Bigler-Engler v. Breg, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 276, FCA then argues that it has no duty to disclose because the FAC fails to allege a direct transactional relationship, that FCA had exclusive knowledge or that FCA’s authorized dealership employees were its agents.

However, the Bigler court expressly stated that a duty to disclose may arise in a “seller and buyer” relationship (see Bigler-Engler, supra, 7 Cal.App.5th 276, 311), and in Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828, the court concluded that similar allegations were sufficient to plead the existence of such a relationship demonstrating a duty to disclose (Dhital, supra, 84 Cal.App.5th at p.844; see also FAC, ¶¶ 4-5, 7-51, 80-87).

Here, the FAC alleges that Plaintiffs interacted with FCA’s sales representatives and reviewed materials disseminated by FCA concerning the subject vehicle, but that FCA actively concealed the existence and nature of the Engine Defect despite having knowledge of the defect and the risk of serious injuries due to the defect. (See FAC, ¶¶ 4-5, 10-11, 18-31, 41, 47, 60-68.)

Here, the FAC sufficiently alleges facts supporting the existence of a duty to disclose. (See Dhital, supra, 84 Cal.App.5th at p.844 (stating that “Nissan argue[d that] plaintiffs did not adequately plead the existence of a buyerseller relationship between the parties, because plaintiffs bought the car from a Nissan dealership (not from Nissan itself)”; nevertheless, the court concluded that plaintiffs’ allegations [we]re sufficient”); see also Johnson v. Casetta (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 272, 276 (stating that “an allegation of knowledge... is an allegation of ultimate fact”); see also City of Industry v.

City of Fillmore (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 191, 212 (stating that “an allegation of ultimate fact... must be accepted as true for purposes of ruling on a demurrer”); see also Kiseskey v. Carpenters' Trust for So. California (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 222, 230 (stating that “t]he general allegation of agency is one of ultimate fact, sufficient against a demurrer”).)

Additionally, FCA cites to numerous federal cases asserting that dealerships are not agents of manufacturers; however, California courts “are not bound by federal decisions on matters of state law.” (Haynes v. EMC Mortgage Corp. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 329, 335; see also Brakke v. Economic Concepts, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 761, 770 (stating that “decisions of federal courts in matters of state law are not binding on state courts”).)

Citing Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 17 Cal.5th 1, FCA lastly argues that the economic loss doctrine bars the sixth cause of action.

The Rattagan court stated that “under the economic loss rule, tort recovery for breach of a contract duty is generally barred... unless... [a] plaintiff [can] demonstrate the defendant's injury-causing conduct violated a duty that is independent of the duties and rights assumed by the parties when they entered the contract... [and that] the defendant's conduct... caused injury to persons or property that was not reasonably contemplated by the parties when the contract was formed.” (Id. at pp.20-21.)

However, Rattagan itself expressly stated that “the economic loss rule does not apply to limit recovery for intentional tort claims like fraud. The doctrine only applies to bar tort recovery for negligently inflicted economic losses unaccompanied by physical or property damage under the limits recognized in Sheen.” (Rattagan, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p.38 (also stating that “Can a plaintiff assert an independent claim of fraudulent concealment in the performance of a contract? The answer to this question is also yes... [a] plaintiff may assert a tort claim for fraudulent concealment based on conduct occurring in the course of a contractual relationship, if the elements of the cause of action can be established independently of the parties‘ contractual rights and obligations and the tortious conduct exposes the plaintiff to a risk of harm beyond the reasonable contemplation of the parties when they entered into the agreement...

California case law similarly has viewed fraud by concealment on equal footing with fraud by affirmative misrepresentation”).)

The Rattagan court merely confirmed its prior statement in Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 543, that “[t]ort damages have been permitted in contract cases... where the contract was fraudulently induced... [because] the duty that gives rise to tort liability is either completely independent of the contract or arises from conduct which is both intentional and intended to harm.” (Erlich, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp.551-552.)

Here, the right to be free from the intentional concealment of material facts regarding the purchase of a vehicle is separate from the contractual rights of a warranty, and the fraudulent inducement of a contract is beyond the reasonable contemplation of parties in entering a contract.

FCA’s argument regarding the economic loss rule is plainly without merit.

FCA’s demurrer to the sixth cause of action for fraudulent inducement—concealment is OVERRULED in its entirety.

In light of the Court’s ruling regarding the demurrer to the sixth cause of action and the FAC’s allegations (see FAC, ¶¶ 7, 12-51, 80-87), FCA’s motion to strike the allegations supporting the request for punitive damages is DENIED.

Case Name: Monica Alcantar v. General Motors LLC