Edward Rodriguez et al vs Avis Rental Car LLC et al

effectively affirming the holding of Dhital for present purposes. The Dhital court held that "[a]t the pleading stage (and in the absence of a more developed argument by Nissan on this point), we conclude plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient. Plaintiffs alleged that they bought the car from a Nissan dealership, that Nissan backed the car with an express warranty, and that Nissan's authorized dealerships are its agents for purposes of the sale of Nissan vehicles to consumers. In light of these allegations, we decline to hold plaintiffs' claim is barred on the ground there was no relationship requiring Nissan to disclose known defects."

Here, plaintiff has set forth those same allegations in her FAC. To the extent that FCA relies on California Supreme Court case of Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 17 Cal.5th 1, for their argument, the Court made clear that Dhital is distinguishable: "Rattagan's tort claims are, of course, based on alleged conduct committed during the contractual relationship but purportedly outside the parties' chosen rights and obligations. This court has granted review in two other cases -- Dhital v.

Nissan North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828, 300 Cal.Rptr.3d 715, review granted Feb. 1, 2023, S277568 and Kia America v. Superior Court (Feb. 3, 2022, D079858) [nonpub. opn.], review granted Apr. 20, 2022, S273170 -- both of which involve claims of fraudulent inducement by concealment claims as well as the potential interplay with remedies available under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, Sec. 1791 et seq.). We do not address these issues here." (Id. at p. 41, fn. 12.)

"Under California law, a vendor has a duty to disclose material facts not only to immediate purchasers, but also to subsequent purchasers when the vendor has reason to expect that the item will be resold." (OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 835, 859.)

There are "four circumstances in which nondisclosure or concealment may constitute actionable fraud: (1) when the defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff; (2) when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff; (3) when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff; and (4) when the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses some material facts." (Heliotis v. Schuman (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 646, 651.)

A "transactional relationship" is not required. Even if it were, the warranty itself evidences a transactional relationship between the parties with respect to the vehicle. Plaintiff has alleged that FCA had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to plaintiff and that FCA actively concealed material facts from plaintiff. At the pleading stage, plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to overcome demurrer on these grounds.

Likewise, the economic loss rule does not bar plaintiff's fraudulent inducement claim. "We acknowledge the differing views taken by courts that have considered this issue. But for the reasons we have discussed above, we conclude that, under California law, the economic loss rule does not bar plaintiffs' claim here for fraudulent inducement by concealment. Fraudulent inducement claims fall within an exception to the economic loss rule recognized by our Supreme Court [citation], and plaintiffs allege fraudulent conduct that is independent of Nissan's alleged warranty breaches. The trial court erred by sustaining Nissan's demurrer to plaintiffs' fraud claim on the ground it was barred by the economic loss rule." (Dhital, supra, 84 Cal.App.5th at p. 843.)

Plaintiff has pled sufficient allegations to overcome FCA's demurrer, and the demurrer will be overruled.

Tentative Ruling: Edward Rodriguez et al vs Avis Rental Car LLC et al Tentative Ruling: Edward Rodriguez et al vs Avis Rental Car LLC et al Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 05/22/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion: Leave