Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 25CV024306: GORDILLO, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC. 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint in Department 8D
Tentative Ruling NOTICE: Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure: To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.
If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.
The Department 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED. Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.
Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf. A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.
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?”
If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 25CV024306: GORDILLO, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC. 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint in Department 8D
and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided. ***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION**** TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant General Motors LLCs (Defendant) Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs Esmeralda Gordillos and Rosa Ogazs (Plaintiffs) Complaint is ruled upon as follows.
Factual Background
This is a Lemon Law action. Plaintiffs alleges that on or about January 17, 2021, they entered into a warranty contract with Defendant regarding a 2021 Chevrolet Camaro (Vehicle). (Complaint, ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs allege that [d]efects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period, including but not limited to transmission defects, engine defects, electrical defects; among other defects and non-conformities. (Id., ¶ 11.)
Plaintiffs allege that on September 12, 2025, when Plaintiffs requested a buyback and/or restitution of the Subject Vehicle from GM, as the Vehicle continued to exhibit symptoms of defects following GM’s unsuccessful attempts to repair them. However, GM failed to provide restitution pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. (Complaint, ¶ 24.) Plaintiffs further alleges that the statute of limitations is tolled pursuant to: equitable tolling, the discovery rule, equitable estoppel, the repair rule, and/or class action tolling. (Complaint, ¶ 23.)
Plaintiffs filed their complaint on October 14, 2025. The Complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d); (2) Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b); (3) Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3); (4) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability [Civ. Code §§ 1791.1, 1794, 1795.5]; and (5) Fraudulent Inducement-Concealment.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 25CV024306: GORDILLO, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC. 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint in Department 8D
Defendant now moves to strike the following portions of Plaintiffs complaint on the ground that the allegations do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 871.24:
1. Defendant GM Moves to Strike Paragraphs 29, 30, and 31 of the Complaint within the First Cause of Action for Improperly Pleading a Request for Civil Penalties 2. Defendant GM Moves to Strike Paragraph 36 in the Second Cause of Action for improperly pleading a Request for Civil Penalties.
3. Defendant GM Moves to Strike Paragraph 39 in the Third cause of Action for improperly pleading a Request for Civil Penalties.
4. Defendant GM Moves to Strike Subdivision (f) of the Prayer for Improperly praying for Civil Penalties
(Notice of Motion at 1:11-19.)
Plaintiffs oppose.
Legal Standard
The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to [Code of Civil Procedure] Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading, (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) The grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).) The use of the motion to strike should be cautious and sparing. It should not be a procedural line item veto. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1683.)
Discussion
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs complaint improperly seeks civil penalties, which are not recoverable pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.24, as Plaintiff failed to allege compliance with section 871.24(h) pre-filing requirements. Plaintiffs oppose, arguing that allegations they requested a buyback and/or restitution on or about September 12, 2025 are sufficient to support civil penalties, and thus the instant motion is without merit.
Code of Civil Procedure section 871.24 provides, in relevant part:
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 25CV024306: GORDILLO, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC. 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint in Department 8D
(a) At least 30 days prior to the commencement of an action seeking civil penalties under subdivision (c) of Section 1794 of the Civil Code, the consumer shall do all of the following:
(1) Notify the manufacturer of the consumer’s name, the accurate Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) “1 of the motor vehicle, and a brief summary of the repair history and problems with the motor vehicle.
(2) Demand that the manufacturer repurchase or replace the motor vehicle.
(h) An action seeking restitution or replacement under Section 871.20 may be commenced without compliance with subdivision (a). In that event, the consumer shall have possession of the motor vehicle at the time of the filing of the complaint, and shall not seek civil penalties, whether by amendment of the complaint or otherwise. If, however, notice is provided pursuant to subdivision (a) and the manufacturer fails to comply with their obligations under subdivision (e), the consumer may commence an action for restitution or replacement, including, but not limited to, civil penalties under subdivision (c) of Section 1794 of the Civil Code.
(emphasis added.) The statute further provides that an action shall not be allowed or maintained for civil penalties if the manufacturer timely offers restitution or replacement and completes that transaction within 60 days of receiving the consumer’s notice. (Code Civ. Proc, § 871.24, subd. (e)(1).) In short, Section 871.24 establishes a formal noticeand-cure process that must occur before a plaintiff may invoke the penalty provisions of the Song-Beverly Act.
California courts have long held that when a statute creates a right and attaches specific conditions to its exercise, those conditions are mandatory. (Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 365, 371 [finding plaintiff could not plead civil penalties absent alleging compliance with the statute’s pre-filing notice and exhaustion requirements].)
Here, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on October 14, 2025, after Section 871.24 was enacted but without any allegation that they provided the required prelitigation notice, identified the VIN, summarized the vehicle’s repair history, demanded repurchase or replacement through the specified statutory channels, or otherwise complied with the requirements of
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 25CV024306: GORDILLO, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC. 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint in Department 8D
section 871.24. The complaint is silent as to any notice at all, let alone compliance with the 30-day waiting period or the requirement that the vehicle remain in the consumer’s possession during that period. (Code Civ. Proc, § 871.24, subd. (c), (g).) As such, Plaintiffs have not alleged compliance with Section 871.24.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiffs request for civil penalties from the complaint is granted, with leave to amend.
Plaintiffs may file and serve an amended complaint no later than July 1, 2026. Although not required by statute or court rule, Plaintiffs are directed to present the clerk a copy of this ruling at the time of filing the First Amended Complaint. Defendant may file and serve a response within 30 days of service of the First Amended Complaint, 35 days if served by mail.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.