AARON vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC

Here, it does not - as Plaintiff Wanda Aaron (“Plaintiff”) does not state when exactly she 25CV156008: AARON vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC 05/28/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.’S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC (Defendant) CRS# 485581895899 in Department 520 experienced issues with her car after her purchase in 2019 and only alleges that she discovered “Defendant’s wrongful conduct . . . around the middle of 2022[.]” (FAC ¶ 17.)

Although the statute of limitations is four years (first through fourth causes of action) and three years for the fraud cause of action, there is insufficient basis to find that Plaintiff’s claims are definitively time-barred, especially at this early stage. However, there is also insufficient basis to find that they are not time-barred without more facts to support equitable tolling or the delayed discovery rule, arguments of which Plaintiff does not specifically or sufficiently address. Rather, Plaintiff alleges that the car contained latent defects at the time of sale. (FAC ¶¶ 36, 68.)

First through Fourth Causes of Action: Violations of the SBA

Additionally, Defendant bases its Motion on arguing that Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute causes of action. For breach of express and implied warranty under the SBA, Plaintiff alleges Defendant was aware of the car's defects, malfunctions, and nonconformities, and knew of its duties under the SBA, but refused to make repairs and/or provide restitution to Plaintiff. (FAC ¶¶ 14-15, 34, 46, 54, 76-77.) The Court finds that the facts alleged are sufficient to state a cause of action for all counts.

On the basis of the statute of limitations argument, however, the Motion is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the first through fourth causes of action.

Fifth Cause of Action: Fraudulent Inducement - Concealment

Defendant argues that this cause of action is also barred by the statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 338(d). (MPA, p. 12:20-23.) Further, Defendant argues that the economic loss doctrine bars the claim because no facts are alleged to state an independent tort.

As Defendant points out, Plaintiff brought this case in November 2025, more than three years after Plaintiff’s purchase of the subject car in September 2019 and more than three years after Plaintiff discovered Defendant’s alleged wrongful conduct “around the middle of 2022[.]” (FAC ¶ 17.)

As to Defendant’s objection about the economic loss rule, "the economic loss rule provides: where a purchaser's expectations in a sale are frustrated because the product he bought is not working properly, her remedy is said to be in contract alone, for he has suffered only ‘economic’ losses.” (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988.) “The economic loss rule requires a purchaser to recover in contract for purely economic loss due to disappointed expectations, unless he can demonstrate harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise.” (Ibid.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV156008: AARON vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC 05/28/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.’S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC (Defendant) CRS# 485581895899 in Department 520

However, “[t]ort damages have been permitted in contract cases where a breach of duty directly causes physical injury; for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in insurance contracts; for wrongful discharge in violation of fundamental public policy; or where the contract was fraudulently induced.” (Robinson Helicopter, supra, 34 Cal. 4th at pp. 989–990.)

Here, Plaintiff fails to allege she was fraudulently induced into purchasing the car due to Defendant's concealment of the sensing defect but relies on inferences to reach said conclusion. (FAC ¶¶ 85-92.) As this defect is curable and as Plaintiff does not specifically plead facts to invoke the discovery rule in the FAC or Opposition, the Motion is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the fifth cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc, §§ 430.10, subds. (e).)

Plaintiff shall serve and file a Second Amended Complaint by no later than June 18, 2026.

NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on May 28, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on May 27, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice that th will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.