Khaosaat v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

(03) Tentative Ruling

Re: Khaosaat v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Case No. 23CECG05081

Hearing Date: June 11, 2026 (Dept. 403)

Motion: Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication

Tentative Ruling:

To grant defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s motion for summary adjudication of the fifth cause of action for fraudulent inducement - concealment.

Explanation:

“The required elements for fraudulent concealment are (1) concealment or suppression of a material fact; (2) by a defendant with a duty to disclose the fact; (3) the defendant intended to defraud the plaintiff by intentionally concealing or suppressing the fact; (4) the plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would have acted differently if the concealed or suppressed fact was known; and (5) plaintiff sustained damage as a result of the concealment or suppression of the material fact.” (Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 17 Cal.5th 1, 40, citations omitted.)

“A duty to disclose a material fact can arise if (1) it is imposed by statute; (2) the defendant is acting as plaintiff's fiduciary or is in some other confidential relationship with plaintiff that imposes a disclosure duty under the circumstances; (3) the material facts are known or accessible only to defendant, and defendant knows those facts are not known or reasonably discoverable by plaintiff (i.e., exclusive knowledge); (4) the defendant makes representations but fails to disclose other facts that materially qualify the facts disclosed or render the disclosure misleading (i.e., partial concealment); or (5) defendant actively conceals discovery of material fact from plaintiff (i.e., active concealment).” (Ibid, citations omitted.) “Circumstances (3), (4), and (5) presuppose a preexisting relationship between the parties, such as ‘between seller and buyer, employer and prospective employee, doctor and patient, or parties entering into any kind of contractual agreement.

All of these relationships are created by transactions between parties from which a duty to disclose facts material to the transaction arises under certain circumstances.’ ‘Such a transaction must necessarily arise from direct dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant; it cannot arise between the defendant and the public at large.’” (Id. at pp. 40–41, citations omitted; see also LiMandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 326, 336–337.) Here, the undisputed facts1 show that defendant American Honda Motor Co, Inc. did not have any direct relationship with plaintiff at the time of the sale of the subject

1 Plaintiff has not disputed most of defendant’s undisputed material facts, and indeed, she concedes that defendant’s facts are true. She has attempted argue that the facts are irrelevant or do not support the conclusions that defendant has asserted, but her contentions are nothing 7

van. Honda did not sell the van to plaintiff or negotiate the sale. Nor did it make any representations to plaintiff with regard to the van. (Defendant’s Undisputed Fact Nos. 3- 5.) Plaintiff purchased the van from Clawson Honda of Fresno. (UMF No. 7.) Plaintiff had no direct communications with American Honda Motor before or during the sale. (Vault decl., ¶ 23.) Thus, there is no evidence that Honda and plaintiff had any direct relationship at the time that plaintiff purchased the van. Since there was no direct buyer and seller relationship between plaintiff and Honda, Honda had no duty to disclose any alleged defects in the van’s collision avoidance system, and it cannot be liable for failure to disclose any such defects.

To the extent that plaintiff has argued that American Honda should be held liable based on any representations or concealment committed by the dealership because the dealership was acting as the agent of Honda, “[g]enerally, retailers are not considered the agents of the manufacturers whose products they sell.” (Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1324, 1343, quoting Murphy v. DirecTV, Inc. (9th Cir. 2013) 724 F.3d 1218, 1232.) Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that would tend to raise a triable issue of material fact with regard to whether the dealership was acting as American Honda’s agent at the time she purchased the van.

Therefore, plaintiff has failed to show that American Honda had a duty to disclose the defects in the van. In her opposition, plaintiff has argued that the Court of Appeal in Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828 held that an auto manufacturer can be held liable for failing to disclose defects in its vehicles. However, Dhital was decided on demurrer, not summary adjudication, and the court simply found that, assuming that all of the complaint’s allegations were true, plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for fraudulent concealment against the manufacturer. “In its short argument on this point in its appellate brief, Nissan argues plaintiffs did not adequately plead the existence of a buyer-seller relationship between the parties, because plaintiffs bought the car from a Nissan dealership (not from Nissan itself).

At 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.” (Dhital v.

Nissan North America, Inc., supra, at p. 844.) Thus, the Court of Appeal in Dhital did not squarely address the issue of whether a manufacturer can be held liable for fraudulently concealing defects in its vehicles from a purchaser where there was no buyer-seller relationship between the manufacturer and the purchaser. The Court of Appeal simply held that, on demurrer, where the court must assume all properly pled facts in the complaint are true, and where the plaintiff alleged that the manufacturer issued an express warranty and the dealership was acting as the manufacturer’s agent, the plaintiff had alleged enough facts to state a claim for fraudulent inducement. (Ibid.)

more than argument rather than evidence of a genuine dispute of fact. Therefore, the court finds that defendant’s facts are undisputed. 8

In the present case, however, Honda has brought a motion for summary adjudication, so the court does not have to assume that the plaintiff’s allegations are true. Instead, the court must determine based on the admissible evidence presented by the parties whether there are any triable issues of disputed fact that support the plaintiff’s fraud claim. Here, the undisputed evidence shows that American Honda had no duty to disclose the alleged defects in the subject vehicle because it had no direct buyerseller relationship with the plaintiff at the time of the sale.

In addition, there is no evidence that the dealership was acting as American Honda’s agent at the time of the sale, so the court finds that American Honda had no duty to disclose the defects based on an agency relationship between American Honda and the dealership. Plaintiff also argues that the fact that American Honda issued various warranties with the van means that it had the type of direct relationship with her that supports a fraudulent concealment claim. However, she cites to no authorities to support her contention.

She only cites to Dhital, supra, which does not state that a manufacturer’s issuance of a warranty with a new car is sufficient by itself to support a fraudulent concealment or inducement claim. Dhital merely held on demurrer that a plaintiff’s complaint that alleged that the manufacturer issued a warranty and that the dealership was acting as the agent of the manufacturer at the time of the sale was sufficient to state a claim for fraudulent inducement. (Id. at p. 844.) Here, there is no evidence that the dealership was acting as the manufacturer’s agent at the time of the sale, and plaintiff has not cited any authorities stating that the fact that manufacturer issued a warranty is enough, by itself, to support a fraudulent inducement claim.

Since American Honda did not have a duty to disclose the defects to plaintiff, it cannot be held liable for fraudulent inducement or concealment and the court intends to grant summary adjudication of the fifth cause of action in favor of American Honda.2

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: lmg on 6-9-26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

2 Since the court finds that American Honda had no duty to disclose the defects to plaintiff, the

court does not have to address defendant’s alternative argument that plaintiff cannot show that she was damaged by the alleged fraud. 9