Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
The elements of a cause of action for negligence include:
Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917.
In order to state a cause of action under this theory plaintiff must prove that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary reasonable care or skill.
Note that the Economic Loss rule precludes recovery of tort damages in a breach of contract case when the wrongdoing does not involve independent tort damages such as a consumer who is personally injured or sustained injury to other property. Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 979, 988.
See also Prosser, Law of Torts, 2d ed. 1955, p. 250. De La Forest v. Yandle (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 59, 60-61.
The statute of limitations provides three years for a negligent repair claim. Code of Civ. Proc. § 338(c)(1).
An auto repair facility, “has [the] duty to perform auto repair services in a good and workmanlike manner.” Civ. Code Sec. 1796.5.
However, the scope of a repairer’s duty was addressed in Seo v. All-Makes Overhead Doors (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1193. Although the issue there had to do with third-parties, and not those directly in privity with the repairer, the following excerpt (at 1205) is informative: “Any duty of the repairer arises out of its contract with the owner to repair the equipment for a specified fee and no justification exists to extend that contractual duty beyond the intent of the contracting parties … The cost of simple repairs would increase significantly, as every repairer would factor into the charge for a service call the additional cost of inspection, advisement, insurance, and liability. An automobile mechanic could not perform a simple oil change without a complete inspection for any design defect of the automobile and the preparation of a complete advisement of defects to the owner.” Id.
An independent contractor may be held liable for negligence if his repair work on an owner’s property directly and proximately causes affirmative harm. Srithong v. Total Investment Co. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 672, 724 (landlord of commercial mall hired contactor to repair roof and contractor’s employees allowed hot tar to seep through ceiling, burning and scarring arm of Plaintiff who leased mall space and operated a restaurant thereupon).
Independent contractors hired to repair a sidewalk may be held liable for a dangerous condition if their negligence affirmatively created that dangerous condition. (Katz v. Helbing (1932) 215 Cal. 449, 452 (contractor left box of lime on sidewalk and street unguarded with no watchman or warning signs, so that two boys threw it at passing street car causing injuries to passengers); McNeill v. A. Teichert & Son Inc. (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 5 (contractor which installed storm sewer for city may be sued for negligently failing to erect a substantial barrier or walk which might have prevented young child from falling into excavation).
And the owner of an item of property being repaired may still be held liable for its negligent repair, even if the owner hired a contractor to conduct the repair, because the duty to maintain and repair the item of property is nondelegable. Koepnick v. Kashiwa Fudosan America Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 32 (property owner that hired company to service elevator still liable to plaintiff for negligent servicing by repair company).)
In Johnson v. Chiu, the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim alleged the dermatologist “negligently and carelessly examined, cared for, followed up on, and treated” the patient, and the general negligence cause of action alleged the dermatologist’s negligent repair and maintenance of a laser machine proximately caused the patient’s hearing loss and vertigo when machine emitted loud sound during treatment. Johnson v. Chiu (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 775, 781.
Demurrer to Complaint by Mercedes-Benz of Anaheim, Mercedes-Benz USA LLC; Defendants Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz of Anaheim seek an order from the Court sustaining their Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for Negligent Repair. Defendants Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz of Anaheim’s Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for Negligent Repair in the Complaint is OVERRULED. The Complaint adequately alleges facts to support a cause of action for negligent repair.
STRAHAN VS. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC
30-2020-01145510
Jan 01, 2021
Orange County, CA
Here, Plaintiff has alleged that Sunrise Fords alleged negligent repair of the Vehicle was a proximate cause of Plaintiffs damages which is sufficient to plead the damage element of the negligent repair claim. (Complaint ¶31); See CACI 1220. CONCLUSION The demurrer is overruled. Answer is due within 20 days.
OMAR MALDONADO GONZALEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMP ANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
23CHCV00390
Aug 16, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The other cases Elk Grove relies on do not involve Lemon Law claims or negligent repair causes of action. The court is not persuaded by Elk Gove's argument that Plaintiff's negligent repair claim "arises from, and is not independent of, the warranty contract." Elk Grove's argument ignores that, as pled, the warranty contract is between Plaintiff and Defendant Ford Motor Company [Cplt. ¶ 10], not between Plaintiff and Elk Grove. Absent authority from Elk Grove, the court is persuaded by Velasco v.
LEMIRE VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
37-2022-00051060-CU-BC-CTL
Oct 06, 2023
San Diego County, CA
Here, Plaintiff has alleged that Galpins alleged negligent repair of the Vehicle was a proximate cause of Plaintiffs damages which is sufficient to plead the damage element of the negligent repair claim. (Complaint ¶¶45-49); See CACI 1220. CONCLUSION The demurrer is overruled. Answer is due within 20 days.
JOSE FABIAN VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.
23CHCV01177
Sep 15, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
ANALYSIS: Defendant demurs on the grounds that the fourth cause of action fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for negligent repair and is barred by the economic loss rule. 1. Negligent Repair Economic Loss Rule: Defendant argues that the negligent repair claim fails because it is barred by the economic loss rule. Specifically, the Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff sustained any injury other than an economic loss.
SYED A. BHUIYAN VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.
23STCV09175
Aug 10, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Additionally, Plaintiff states that Central Ford conflates the issue of whether or not the Complaint states sufficient facts with its legal argument about whether the Economic Loss Rule bars negligent repair claims, but the Court must focus instead on whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for negligent repair.
FRANCISCO GARCIA ASPRILLA VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.
23NWCV01067
Jun 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Negligent Repair (3 rd COA) The limitations period for Plaintiffs’ negligent repair claim is three years. (C.C.P. §338(c)(1).) Plaintiffs’ negligent repair claim is barred on the face of the complaint.
JERRY D. ASHCRAFT, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV14902
Sep 28, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Instead, the negligent repair claim is based on allegations that Ventura Ford negligently repaired the vehicle under warranty. (FAC, ¶¶ 9, 56-59.) In the FAC, Plaintiff seems to only seek damages for the cost of the repair to the subject vehicle. (Id., Prayer for Relief appears to indicate this.) The claim for negligent repair is barred because Plaintiff's claim is based solely on the defective product itself (the nonconforming vehicle.)
KIRCHER VS. FORD
56-2020-00547954-CU-BC-VTA
Jul 23, 2021
Ventura County, CA
Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle developed further defects because of Defendant’s negligent repair. Defendant has filed this opposed demurrer to Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action (Negligent Repair).
ERWIN DE LEON VS FCA US LLC., A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
21STCV04330
Aug 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Thus, the negligent repair claim against Moss is barred by the economic loss rule. Accordingly, the demurrer to the fifth cause of action for negligent repair is sustained. Summary: SUSTAIN Defendant Moss Bros Volkswagen’s Demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action for Negligent Repair with 21 days leave to amend from this ruling.
ARANDA VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
CVRI2304349
Jan 30, 2024
Riverside County, CA
The operative complaint alleges claims for (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act breach of express warranty, (2) violation of the Song Beverly Act Section 1793.2 and (3) negligent repair. The first and second causes of action are alleged against Ford, while the third cause of action is alleged against AMF. This hearing is on AMFs demurrer to the third cause of action for negligent repair.
MICHAEL L. COHEN VS FOX HILLS AUTO, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
23SMCV00795
May 09, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The FAC asserts the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act Breach of Express Warranty; (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act Breach of Implied Warranty; and (3) Negligent Repair. Defendant SHAYCO, INC. (Defendant) demurs to Plaintiffs third cause of action for Negligent Repair. Third Cause of Action Negligent Repair Defendant argues that Plaintiffs third cause of action, as alleged, is barred by the economic loss rule.
FRANCISCO GONZALEZ VALENCIA VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, ET AL.
23NWCV02255
Jan 25, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
All elements of a negligent repair cause of action have been alleged. Defendant Dodge argues that a claim for negligent repair must establish proximate cause, that is, that defendants negligent repair in some way contributed to the injury, and that the FAC fails to make this showing. The pleading expressly alleges that defendants negligent breaches were the proximate cause of plaintiffs damages. [FAC, para. 85].
TYLER LEE, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.
22GDCV00801
Feb 24, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Accordingly, the negligent repair claims against Hemet are barred by the economic loss rule. Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted with leave to amend.
ALLEN VS FCA US, LLC
CVSW2203666
Oct 25, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer to the fourth cause of action for negligent repair is SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend. Moving party to give notice.
ELVIA MARTINEZ VS FCA US LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
19STCV28203
Oct 30, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
Discussion Defendant moves the Court for judgment on the pleadings, arguing: (1) that the negligent repair claim fails to state facts to constitute a cause of action; and (2) that the negligent repair claim is barred by the economic loss rule. (Motion, pp. 6:1112, 7:1.) The Court disagrees with Defendants arguments.
BRENDA SANDOVAL VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC., ET AL.
23STCV12037
Aug 24, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, Plaintiffs negligent repair cause of action is not only a negligence claim, but it is also a breach of warranty claim based on Defendants allegedly negligent performance of its repair services.
PALOMA TIRADO, VS IRVINE AUTO RETAIL II INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22NWCV00928
Mar 23, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, the fraud claim is based on purported concealment, not affirmative misrepresentations. 6 th Cause of Action Negligent Repair Autonation contends that Plaintiffs complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state the claim for negligent repair based on the economic loss rule and failure to sufficiently allege all of the elements of the cause of action (i.e., damages).
TIMOTHY MCGINLEY, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.
23CHCV02410
Jan 30, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, Plaintiff has alleged that Autonations alleged negligent repair of the Vehicle was a proximate cause of Plaintiffs damages which is sufficient to plead the damage element of the negligent repair claim. (Complaint ¶¶73-77); See CACI 1220.
BOBBY BURGESS, SR., ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.
23CHCV02062
Oct 20, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
This is particularly important given that the consumer claims have been dismissed, and only negligent repair remains.
LIMA VS. RICOH USA, INC.
30-2019-01055797
Aug 27, 2020
Orange County, CA
Defendant Audi Beverly Hills (Audi) demurs to Plaintiff Gisselle Delgados (Plaintiff) Complaint on the grounds that the Fifth Cause of Action for Negligent Repair fails to state a cause of action and is uncertain. Background Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant Volkswagen Group of America (Volkswagen) for Violation of the Song-Beverly Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and against Audi for Negligent Repair.
GISSELLE S DELGADO VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC, ET AL.
23NWCV02619
Jan 24, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
The operative complaint alleges claims for (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty , (3) violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2 and (4) negligent repair. The only claim alleged against SMA is a cause of action for negligent repair. This hearing is on SMAs demurrer to the negligent repair claim.
JEANETTE MEJIA VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, ET AL.
23SMCV01542
Jun 15, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Discussion Here, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fourth cause of action for Negligent Repair fails to state facts sufficient to assert a negligent repair cause of action, is barred by the economic loss rule, is vague, uncertain, and contains nothing more than legal conclusions.
LAMBE B. PAPOULIAS VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, ET AL.
23TRCV01671
Aug 22, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s negligent repair claim is barred by the economic loss rule and accordingly, his damages claim is not properly pled. Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is Granted, with ten day’s leave to amend.
HERNANDEZ VS KARHAY LLC
CVSW2103603
Nov 16, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Negligent Repair ( not alleged against Ford Motor Company ) RULING : The demurrer is placed off calendar.
MAXIMILIAN I WEBB VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.
23CHCV02468
Feb 02, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Thus, because Plaintiffs negligent repair action is based on a contractual duty to repair and Plaintiff has not alleged any facts establishing an independent noncontractual duty contract, Plaintiffs third cause of action is barred by the economic loss rule. Accordingly, Defendants demurrer to Plaintiffs third cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
QUANYI WANG, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
22PSCV01739
Apr 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants rely heavily on unpublished, nonbinding, district court cases from courts in the Ninth Circuit to support their argument that the economic loss rule bars Plaintiffs claim for negligent repair. Pleading a special relationship is not required for a negligent repair claim (See CACI No. 1200.) And the presence or absence of the requisite special relationship is a question of fact more appropriately determined on a motion for summary judgment.
ERICK MORALES MOSCOSO VS GALPIN MOTORS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV09279
Jul 18, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs Complaint states four causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act Breach of Express Warranty; (2) Violation of Song Beverly Act Breach of Implied Warranty; (3) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2; and (4) Negligent Repair. The Complaint seeks compensatory and statutory damages as provided by the Song Beverly Act. (Compl. at p. 7 [Prayer for Relief].) Defendant VW DTLA demurs to the fourth cause of action for negligent repair.
SAMANTHA RUIZ VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, ET AL.
23NWCV02109
Dec 19, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant Fiesta now moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the 3rd cause of action for negligent repair, contending that it fails because it is barred by the economic loss rule and Plaintiff fails to plead damages, i.e. out of pocket repair costs. In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Plaintiff has pled all elements of her claim for negligent repair.
BURTON VS EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER
CVPS2204089
Jul 20, 2023
Riverside County, CA
However, DCH fails to sufficiently demonstrate the negligent repair claim is derivative and stems from the Song-Beverly claims. SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
LAUREN FALLIERAS VS SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC, ET AL.
22SMCV01410
Jan 16, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
On February 5, 2021, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the second and fourth causes of action for breach of the implied warranty and fraud with leave to amend and overruled the demurrer to the third cause of action for negligent repair. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 16, 2021. The parties settled on March 11, 2021.
DAVID HOLBROOK VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,, ET AL.
20STCV21996
Apr 29, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Defendants’ argument as to New Century is similarly based solely upon the statute of limitations, which is three years for the negligent repair claim, (CCP § 338(c)(1)), and the unsupported contention that Centeno “could not discovery any alleged negligent repair after he sold the car and no longer had possession of it.” (Mo. at 8.) New Century also cites repair orders from New Century on July 13, 2010 and a subsequent repair by McKenna BMW. (Mo. at 7.)
EDGAR E CENTENO VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC ET AL
BC617730
Jan 04, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
In the present case, Plaintiff’s negligent repair cause of action, as pleaded, is barred by the economic loss rule. Notably, the alleged negligent repair arises from a contractual duty, namely the express warranty. (See FAC, ¶¶ 14-18.)
PARRA VS SAUL CHEVROLET, INC.
CVRI2301139
Sep 10, 2023
Riverside County, CA
In the present case, Plaintiff’s negligent repair cause of action, as pleaded, is barred by the economic loss rule. Notably, the alleged negligent repair arises from a contractual duty, namely the express warranty. (See FAC, ¶¶ 14-18.)
PARRA VS SAUL CHEVROLET, INC.
CVRI2301139
Sep 09, 2023
Riverside County, CA
In the present case, Plaintiff’s negligent repair cause of action, as pleaded, is barred by the economic loss rule. Notably, the alleged negligent repair arises from a contractual duty, namely the express warranty. (See FAC, ¶¶ 14-18.)
PARRA VS SAUL CHEVROLET, INC.
CVRI2301139
Sep 11, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Negligent Repair 3 rd CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT REPAIR: The elements are: 1) Legal duty owed to plaintiffs to use due care; 2) breach of duty; 3) causation; and 4) damage to plaintiff. (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917.)
RICARDO D. SAPIENZA JR. VS COLLEY AUTO CARS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
23NWCV00422
Aug 08, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
(VW), Covina Volkswagen (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for violation of subdivisions (D), (B), and (A)(3) of Civil Code section 1793.2, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and negligent repair. On November 13, 2023, Defendant Covina Volkswagen filed a demurrer to the fifth cause of cause for negligent repair. On January 9, 2024, Plaintiff opposed the demurrer. On January 16, 2024, Covina Volkswagen replied.
JOE CASANOVA, ET AL. VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.
23PSCV02758
Jan 23, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants contend that the cause of action for negligent repair is barred by the economic loss rule. First, the Court notes that the negligent repair cause of action is asserted solely against McPeek’s.
ARACELY LARA SALDIVAR, ET AL. VS FCA US LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
19STCV21651
Sep 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE HERNANDEZ LOAIZA VS PLEADINGS ON COMPLAINT OF CVSW2204652 KARHAY LLC FAUSTO HERNANDEZ LOAIZA BY FORD MOTOR COMPANY Tentative Ruling: GRANT Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the fourth cause of action for negligent repair with 30 days leave to amend.
HERNANDEZ LOAIZA VS KARHAY LLC
CVSW2204652
Jul 10, 2023
Riverside County, CA
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE HERNANDEZ LOAIZA VS PLEADINGS ON COMPLAINT OF CVSW2204652 KARHAY LLC FAUSTO HERNANDEZ LOAIZA BY FORD MOTOR COMPANY Tentative Ruling: GRANT Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the fourth cause of action for negligent repair with 30 days leave to amend.
HERNANDEZ LOAIZA VS KARHAY LLC
CVSW2204652
Jul 08, 2023
Riverside County, CA
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE HERNANDEZ LOAIZA VS PLEADINGS ON COMPLAINT OF CVSW2204652 KARHAY LLC FAUSTO HERNANDEZ LOAIZA BY FORD MOTOR COMPANY Tentative Ruling: GRANT Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the fourth cause of action for negligent repair with 30 days leave to amend.
HERNANDEZ LOAIZA VS KARHAY LLC
CVSW2204652
Jul 09, 2023
Riverside County, CA
At this point, it is unclear if the economic loss rule applies, but Plaintiffs will need to plead what damages they incurred as a result of the negligent repair. 4. STATE FARM GENERAL PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF AN CVSW2309792 INSURANCE COMPANY UMPIRE BY STATE FARM GENERAL VS.
ESTRADA VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
CVSW2307546
Jan 11, 2024
Riverside County, CA
Plaintiff filed the Complaint asserting causes of action for violations of Song-Beverly and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and fraudulent inducement-concealment against FMC and negligent repair against Gosch. Defendants demurs to the fraudulent inducement and negligent repair causes of action. They contend the fraud cause of action in not pled with the requisite specificity, there was no duty to disclose and is barred by the economic loss rule.
ANDERSON VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
CVSW2305084
Oct 19, 2023
Riverside County, CA
(1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1072.)¿ The complaint does not allege that Plaintiffs paid any out of pocket expenses for any repairs performed by Sunrise, or otherwise explain how Plaintiff was damaged by the negligent repair.¿ Therefore, the court finds Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged the essential element of damages to state their negligent repair claim. Accordingly, the court sustains Defendants demurrer to the sixth cause of action with leave to amend.
JESSICA ALVARADO, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.
23VECV03586
Nov 07, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
WHEELER INC. dba BIG BEAR AUTO REPAIR ("Defendant") challenges Plaintiffs ASHLEY ZURLAGE and KARL ZURLAGE's ("Plaintiffs") cause of action for negligent repair. Defendant asserts the complaint fails to specify the date of the repairs occurred, unrecoverable damages are requested, and the economic loss rule bars the claim. First, alleging when the repair took place is not an element of the cause of action. The elements of a cause of action for negligent repair are duty, breach, causation, and damages.
ZURLAGE VS FCA US LLC
37-2022-00052535-CU-BC-CTL
Sep 15, 2023
San Diego County, CA
On December 15, 2022, and January 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint and first amended complaint for Violations of Song-Beverly Act Breach of Express Warranty, Violations of Song-Beverly Act Breach of Implied Warranty, Violations of Song-Beverly Act Civil Code section 1793.2, and Negligent Repair. On February 21, 2023, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. answered the first amended complaint. On May 8, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer to the fourth cause of action for negligent repair.
CHANCE TASSONE ON BEHALF OF CHASE OF A LIFETIME INC. VS JONES BH ACQUISITION, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DBA AUDI BEVERLY HILLLS, ET AL.
22CHCV01394
Jan 02, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
On November 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Ford, Defendant, and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty, and (3) negligent repair. On April 6, 2023, the court sustained a demurrer to Plaintiffs Complaint by Defendant with leave to amend. On April 26, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same defendans alleging the same causes of action.
QUANYI WANG, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
22PSCV01739
Jun 29, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
However, Defendants have not cited law precluding a negligent repair claim. ( See Lytle v. Ford Motor Co. (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2018) 2018 WL 4793800, at *2 [“California law is not so settled that a plaintiff could not possibly recover against a dealership for negligent repair of a vehicle.”].) Defendants also argue Plaintiff cannot provide a declaration contradicting the facts pled in the Complaint for venue purposes.
MONICA R. SMITH VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LLC, ET AL.
20STCV23821
Dec 22, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Therefore, the demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to the 6 th COA. 5 th COA for Negligent Repair To state a viable claim for negligent repair, a plaintiff need allege that the repair facility (1) owed a duty to use ordinary care and skill, (2) breached its duty, (3) caused damage to the plaintiff, and (4) that this was causation of damages. ( Lytle v. Ford Motor Co. (E.D.Cal. 2018) 2018 WL 4793800; citing Burgess v.
HECTOR TRIGUEROS VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.
24PSCV00196
Apr 15, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
To sustain, with leave to amend, Defendant Envision Ford Lincoln of Oxnard’s (“Envision”) general demurrer to Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action for negligent repair, solely on the ground that Plaintiffs fail to sufficient allege how Envision’s allegedly negligent repair of the Vehicle caused Plaintiffs damages and the nature of such damages.
2023CUBC015044 MARILU ARROYO, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.
2023CUBC015044
Dec 13, 2023
Ventura County, CA
Demurrer to the Third Cause of Action for Negligent Repair Defendant Santa Margarita argues that Plaintiffs second cause of action for Negligent Repair is barred by the economic loss rule because Plaintiff claims solely economic damages. (Mot., p. 3) Simply stated, the economic loss rule provides: [W]here a purchaser's expectations in a sale are frustrated because the product he bought is not working properly, his remedy is said to be in contract alone, for he has suffered only economic losses.
MICHAEL THALKEN, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
23NWCV01846
Feb 06, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs include related cause of action for negligent repair. Plaintiffs allege they purchased a 2015 Ford Edge that exhibits engine defects. Defendant Peyton Cramer Ford now moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the fourth cause of action for negligent repair. Plaintiffs opposed. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Fourth Cause of Action is GRANTED.
ERIKA SANCHEZ, ET AL. VS PEYTON CRAMER FORD, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV15780
Feb 03, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Negligent Repair; 2. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; 3. Breach of Warranty of Habitability; and 4. Constructive Eviction. The complaint was not served on Defendants until December 22, 2016. On 3/13/17, the case was ordered transferred from the personal injury department to Dept. 73. On February 7, 2017, Defendants filed a demurrer and motion to strike portions of the complaint.
PAUL ALEXANDER LORENZANO ET AL VS LAWERENCE ARTHUR ET AL
BC571372
May 01, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Accordingly, the claim for negligent repair appears to be barred by the economic loss rule on its face. While Plaintiff argues in opposition that under California law, the economic loss rule does not bar recovery in tort for damage to a vehicle caused by negligent repair of a component, they do not allege any cognizable facts to support the so-called Component Exception to the Economic Loss Rule. (Opp., 16: 4-5.)
SHIRA GOLFEIZ PANAHI, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC., ET AL.
22STCV38763
Jul 17, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Case No. 21STCV32755 Demurrer and Motion to Strike Plaintiff Natan Davoodi (Plaintiff) filed this action asserting the following causes of action: (1) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; (2) Breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (3) Negligent repair; and (4) Misrepresentation. Defendants demur to the third and fourth causes of action and move to strike the prayer for punitive damages. Plaintiffs third cause of action is for negligent repair.
NATAN DAVOODI VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,, ET AL.
21STCV32755
Jan 13, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
(VWGOA) and negligent repair against Defendant VOLKSWAGEN SANTA MONICA (VWSM). On October 18, 2023, Defendants filed their demurrers to the Complaint. Defendants argue that the negligent repair claim, cause of action five, is barred by the economic loss rule. LEGAL STANDARD A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. ( Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)
ROXANA YAGHOOBIAN VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.
23STCV19174
Dec 04, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
However, there is no such exception applicable to the seventh cause of action for negligent repair. As argued by Defendants, “the damages sought under Plaintiff’s claim for negligent repair are no different than those damages sought under Plaintiff’s contract claims.” (Motion 11:10-11.) Plaintiff’s opposition contains a subheading entitled “The Economic Loss Rule Does Not Bar a Negligent Repair Cause of Action and Plaintiff Properly Pled This Cause of Action.” (Opp.11:15-16.)
JEANNE A. LAWTON VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.
20STCV19569
Mar 17, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, the fourth cause of action is for negligent repair by the car dealership. It is not an allegation of a product defect, nor is it obvious from the pleadings that Plaintiff is alleging only a defective product in her Complaint.
SALDANA VS CERRITOS FORD INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
CVRI2104798
May 10, 2022
Riverside County, CA
All elements of a negligent repair cause of action have been alleged. Defendant Star Ford also argues that the cause of action is barred by the economic loss rule. Defendant relies on Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v.
SUNNY HWANG VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.
24GDCV00089
Mar 29, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Chen Fei Liu ¶ 3.) ----- Discussion Application Defendants demur to the Fifth Cause of Action (Fraudulent Inducement) and the Sixth Cause of Action (Negligent Repair). i. Fifth Cause of Action (Negligent Repair) against FMC Defendant presents that Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts state her fraud claim.
NANCY KING, ET AL. VS ALLISON MARIE RAMIREZ, ET AL.
23AVCV01003
Jan 16, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
The Fourth Cause of Action is for NEGLIGENT REPAIR against named defendant Chula Vista Ford (Desert Auto Group V, LLC). Chula Vista Ford demurs to the Fourth Cause of Action arguing that the economic loss rule bars Plaintiffs' claim and that Plaintiffs have not pled damages (independent of damages from breach of warranty claims).
DEL CARMEN BECERRA GARCIA VS DESERT AUTO GROUP V LLC
37-2023-00006044-CU-BC-CTL
Aug 25, 2023
San Diego County, CA
Discussion Defendant argues that Plaintiffs claim against it for negligent repair is barred by the economic loss rule. In support, Defendant cites a number of cases. ( See , e.g ., Foulkrod v. Ford Motor Co . (C.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2019) 5:18-CV-02613, 2019 WL 480468, at *34; Ruiz v. BMW of N. Am . (C.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2017) LLC, No 2:16-cv-01177, 2017 U.S. Dist.
ISRAEL HERNANDEZ GALEN, ET AL. VS TED JONES FORD, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV32198
Apr 22, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Therefore, Bob Wondries Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied because Plaintiff has stated sufficient facts to allege a cause of action for negligent repair. Bob Wondries also argues that Plaintiff has failed to plead damages, however, the defect must appear on the face of the Complaint. Here, Plaintiff has stated that the alleged negligent repair was a proximate cause of Plaintiffs damages. (Compl. ¶ 31.)
GENOVEVA LOZANO VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
22NWCV01373
Nov 01, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
That is not true, but before granting the MSJ to Ricoh, the Court will give both sides leave to file, within 7 days, a single memorandum – not to exceed six pages – addressing only Ricoh’s involvement in the alleged negligent repair. Hearing continued to August 20th.
LIMA VS. RICOH USA, INC.
30-2019-01055797
Aug 06, 2020
Orange County, CA
The third cause of action for res ipsa loquitir and negligent repair fails as a matter of law. Res Ipsa Loquitir is not a cause of action, but rather, a presumption affecting the burden of production. (Evid. Code, § 646, subd. (b).) In addition, tort damages are not recoverable for economic losses unaccompanied by physical damage. (Aas v. Super. Ct. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627; Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 543, 550–554.) Defendants to give notice.
FRAUENZIMMER VS. AIRSTREAM, INC.
30-2017-00926731-CU-BC-CJC
Apr 16, 2018
Orange County, CA
· Negligence: Their negligent repair claim is barred by the economic loss rule, and Plaintiffs fail to plead the element of damages and they cannot plead that they paid any amounts for the alleged unsuccessful repairs. · Motion Service: The parties have been accepting a practice of email service.
MAURICIO SEDANO LOPEZ, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV28056
Jul 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
In reply, Defendants briefly argue that the negligent repair claim has nothing to do with the lemon law claim alleging a defective product. Defendants further argue that it is improper to combine an unrelated claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 396, however, as set forth above in footnote 1, section 396 has no application here. Defendants have not shown that Plaintiffs negligent repair cause of action was improperly joined.
CHARLES AARON MENANE V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, HYSEN-JOHNSON FORD
18CVP-0194
Mar 12, 2019
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Negligent Repair 1.
MIKI ROBERTS VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
23CHCV00408
Nov 07, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, Defendant¿demurs to Plaintiffs third cause of action on the bases that Plaintiff fails¿to allege facts sufficient to¿state¿a cause of action for negligent repair, and the claim is barred by the economic loss rule. Negligent Repair 1.
MIKI ROBERTS VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
23CHCV00408
Jun 12, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court understands that the damages sought under the cause of action for negligent repair are no different than the damages sought under Plaintiffs contract claims. As such, the Court finds that the economic loss rule bars Plaintiff from asserting a claim for negligent repair against Defendant Subaru Pacific. B.
VIVIANNE JEAN COE VS SUBARU OF AMERICA INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
23TRCV00918
Oct 20, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The FAC asserts the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act Breach of Express Warranty; and (2) Negligent Repair. Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY (Defendant) demurs, for the second time, to Plaintiffs First and Second Causes of Action. The Court notes that the arguments raised in the instant Demurrer are almost identical to the arguments raised in Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (heard on May 18, 2023).
MARIA RAMIREZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
22NWCV01237
Nov 09, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act Breach of Express Warranty; and (2) Negligent Repair. Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY (Defendant) moves for judgment on the pleadings as to of Plaintiffs and Second Causes of Action.
MARIA RAMIREZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
22NWCV01237
May 18, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Ruling: Defendants’ Demurrer to the Third Cause of Action for Negligent Repair is OVERRULED. The elements of a cause of action for negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages. (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917.) Here, the First Amended Complaint adequately pleads facts to support the elements of duty, breach, causation, and damages. (FAC ¶¶ 45-54.)
FRAUENZIMMER VS. AIRSTREAM, INC.
30-2017-00926731-CU-BC-CJC
Jul 16, 2018
Orange County, CA
Negligent Repair RELIEF REQUESTED IN MOTION TO STRIKE : An order striking the prayer for punitive damages (Prayer, Item f, p.20:24). RULING : The demurrer and motion to strike are placed off calendar. This action arises from Plaintiff Elya Bradens (Plaintiff) purchase of a 2020 Chevrolet Bolt (the Vehicle).
ELYA BRADEN VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
23CHCV03526
Mar 13, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
s demurrer to the third cause of action for negligent repair. The pleadings and the economic loss rule limit plaintiff to contract remedies. The court SUSTAINS, without leave to amend, the demurrer to fourth cause of action for conversion. The allegations do not support a finding that defendant wrongfully exercised dominion over plaintiff's vehicle. Consider denying leave to amend due to the lack of an opposition unless plaintiff appears at the hearing and explains how she can turn this into a tort action.
KATLYN MOORE VS. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA INC
56-2019-00524532-CU-BC-VTA
Jun 13, 2019
Vincent O'Neill
Ventura County, CA
Further, Plaintiffs negligent repair claim is related to their claims against FCA as all of the allegations in those claims are incorporated into the negligent repair claim against Rydell. (Complaint ¶74). Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs are estopped from refusing to arbitrate their claim against Rydell. See Felisilda , supra at 497.
PATRICIA ANG-SCHMID, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.
22CHCV00639
Apr 05, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Cause of Action Three - Negligent repair. Defendants argue the negligent repair claim fails because the economic loss rule bars it and because Plaintiff has not plead damages. Generally, a plaintiff may recover for all harm proximately cause by a defendants wrongful acts. (Civ.
GINO MORTILLARO VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.
22STCV17142
Mar 29, 2023
day s
Los Angeles County, CA
Sixth Cause of Action: Negligent Repair Defendants also demur to the sixth cause of action for negligent repair asserted against Santa Monica Ford Lincoln as barred under the economic loss rule. Defendants assert that the negligent repair claim against Santa Monica Ford Lincoln arises out of the warranty contract with Ford Motor Company. Nothing in the First Amended Complaint supports this position beyond a rote incorporation by reference of the preceding allegations in the Complaint.
MELTON L MITCHELL, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.
23STCV17259
Apr 15, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Further, Plaintiffs sue AutoNation for its negligent repair and following damages.
KIMBERLY LOUZAN, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.
20STCV28747
Mar 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
[2] This amount reflects the reduction of $12,405 in fees billed by paralegals and law students, $4,680 in fees performed on matters related to the negligent repair cause of action, and $2,310 for fees billed in connection with the Motion.
RYAN HALL VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC,, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
22STCV01986
Jan 29, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
.); and Does 1-10, alleging (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty, (3) violation of Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2, subdivision (b), and (4) negligent repair. On November 27, 2023, Moss Bros. filed the present demurrer. Prior to filing, Moss Bros.s counsel attempted to meet and confer with Ramirezs counsel through emails and a phone call but was not successful. (Gamino Decl., ¶ 3-4.)
ARLENE RAMIREZ VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, ET AL.
23PSCV02636
Jan 29, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
On May 15, 2023, the Avanessians filed a complaint against Defendants Volkswagen, Rusnak/Pasadena, and Does 1-10, alleging (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty, (3) violation of Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2, subdivision (b), and (4) negligent repair. On July 21, 2023, Rusnak/Pasadena filed the present demurrer. On September 25, the court continued the hearing for parties to further meet and confer.
HAMLET AVANESSIAN, ET AL. VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, ET AL.
23PSCV01470
Oct 23, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
.); and Does 1-10, alleging (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty, (3) violation of Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2, subdivision (b), and (4) negligent repair. On November 27, 2023, Moss Bros. filed the present demurrer. Prior to filing, Moss Bros.s counsel attempted to meet and confer with Ramirezs counsel through emails and a phone call but was not successful. (Gamino Decl., ¶ 3-4.)
ARLENE RAMIREZ VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, ET AL.
23PSCV02636
Feb 05, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. 2nd CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT REPAIR: The elements are: 1) Legal duty owed to plaintiffs to use due care; 2) breach of duty; 3) causation; and 4) damage to plaintiff. ( Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917.)
GLORIA GRANADOS, ET AL. VS WALTERS AUTO SALES AND SERVICE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22NWCV01324
May 09, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Further, there seems to be a factual issue as to whether the economic loss rule applies to Plaintiffs negligent repair claim; specifically, there is an issue as to whether the failure to repair subcomponents damaged other components of the subject vehicle. (See Sabicer v. Ford Motor Co. (C.D. Cal. 2019) 362 F.Supp.3d 837, 841.) Defendants next argue that Plaintiffs fraud claim fails to plead duty and is not specific.
SYLVIA ORTIZ, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.
20STCV27414
Jul 18, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Introduction Defendant Vista Ford Inc. dba Vista Ford Lincoln (Defendant) moved for judgment on the pleadings as to the third cause of action (COA) for negligent repair alleged in Plaintiffs Saul and Samuel Vargas (collectively, Plaintiffs) Complaint. Discussion Defendant argued that the third COA for negligent repair is barred by the economic loss rule and failed to plead supportive facts as to the element of damages.
SAUL VARGAS, ET AL. VS VISTA FORD INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA VISTA FORD LINCOLN, ET AL.
22VECV02373
Jun 12, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The court finds that Central Ford has not met its burden of showing that the fourth cause of action for negligent repair has no merit because Central Ford has not shown that (1) the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations bars this cause of action, or (2) the economic loss rule bars this cause of action.
SANTIAGO P. PELAYO VS CENTRAL FORD AUTOMOTIVE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
18STCV10054
Jun 02, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Summary adjudication is granted as to the implied warranty of merchantability claim alleged in the first cause of action and adjudication is granted as to the negligent repair claim raised in the third cause of action; both are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Summary adjudication is denied as to the express warranty claim alleged in the first cause of action because an arguably covered repair occurred on September 7, 2016, which is within four years of the filing of the present complaint.
BARBUTI VS MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC
PSC2003841
May 11, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Defendant demurs to the fourth cause of action for Negligent Repair for failure to state facts sufficient facts to state a cause of action. Fourth Cause of Action for Negligent Repair Defendants demurrer to the fourth cause of action is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. Plaintiffs fail to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action.
TERESA HERRERA, ET AL. VS SOUTH BAY FORD, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
23TRCV00903
Oct 05, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On September 20, 2023, the Wang and Lu filed a complaint against Volkswagen; Mesa Imports, Inc., doing business as Puente Hills Volkswagen; and Does 1-10, alleging (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty, (3) violation of Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2, subdivision (b), and (4) negligent repair. On December 14, 2023, Puente Hills Volkswagen filed the present demurrer.
CHENXU WANG, ET AL. VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, ET AL.
23PSCV02916
Jan 22, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Economic Loss Rule—Fraudulent Omission and Negligent Repair Defendants argue the fraudulent omission and negligent repair claims are barred by the economic loss rule. 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.” ( Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988.)
JEAN-CLAUDE RAHIER, ET AL. VS VOLVO CAR USA, LLC, ET AL.
21STCV06564
Jun 15, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Sixth Cause of Action: Negligent Repair (against Lake Elsinore) Defendants next demur to the sixth cause of action for negligent repair on the grounds that it too is barred by the economic loss rule and fails to plead damages. The elements of a negligence cause of action are: (1) a legal duty to use due care; (2) breach of such duty; (3) the breach was the proximate or legal cause of resulting injuries. (Ladd v. Cnty. of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917.)
BUCHNER VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION
CVRI2304791
Jan 11, 2024
Riverside County, CA
Moving parties demurrer to the fifth cause of action for fraudulent inducement (against Ford) and the sixth cause of action for negligent repair (against Fiesta). Defendants Ford and Fiesta demurrer on the grounds that the First Amended Complaint fails to specifically plead facts sufficient to support these claims and that both are barred by the economic loss doctrine.
VAZQUEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
CVPS2302029
Aug 21, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Moving parties demurrer to the fifth cause of action for fraudulent inducement (against Ford) and the sixth cause of action for negligent repair (against Fiesta). Defendants Ford and Fiesta demurrer on the grounds that the First Amended Complaint fails to specifically plead facts sufficient to support these claims and that both are barred by the economic loss doctrine.
VAZQUEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
CVPS2302029
Aug 19, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Moving parties demurrer to the fifth cause of action for fraudulent inducement (against Ford) and the sixth cause of action for negligent repair (against Fiesta). Defendants Ford and Fiesta demurrer on the grounds that the First Amended Complaint fails to specifically plead facts sufficient to support these claims and that both are barred by the economic loss doctrine.
VAZQUEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
CVPS2302029
Aug 20, 2023
Riverside County, CA
(See CRC, rule 3.1324(a), (b).)¿ Plaintiff seeks to the additional causes of action for d Negligent Repair and Strict Liability Design Defect as well as punitive damages as a prayer for relief to the Complaint on the grounds the proposed amendments will allow Plaintiff to properly present his case by presenting additional or alternative causes of actions that go to the heart of Plaintiffs complaints and the defects with the 2020 BMW X5 xDrive 40i that Plaintiff leased.
ALEXANDER GHATAN VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.
23VECV03290
Jan 09, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
ANALYSIS Rusnak/Pasadena demurs to the Avanessians fourth cause of action for negligent repair. For the following reasons, the court finds parties did not adequately meet and confer.
HAMLET AVANESSIAN, ET AL. VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, ET AL.
23PSCV01470
Sep 25, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, the Complaint sets forth statutory claims against FMC and a claim for negligent repair against Hemborg. The dealer is not a party to this action. The Complaint does not depend upon the RISC in asserting causes of action against the nonsignatory manufacturer and the nonsignatory repair facility, and Defendants’ alleged misconduct is not founded upon or intertwined with the obligations of the RISC.
KRUTZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
CVRI2201730
Oct 31, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Here, the Complaint sets forth statutory claims against FMC and a claim for negligent repair against Hemborg. The dealer is not a party to this action. The Complaint does not depend upon the RISC in asserting causes of action against the nonsignatory manufacturer and the nonsignatory repair facility, and Defendants’ alleged misconduct is not founded upon or intertwined with the obligations of the RISC.
KRUTZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
CVRI2201730
Oct 30, 2022
Riverside County, CA
The demurrer is sustained as to the negligent repair cause of action. Unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment, denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion [...] Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule...." (McDonald v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 297, 303-04.) The face of the complaint does not indicate Plaintiffs could not possibly amend the complaint as to the cause of action for negligent repair.
GUTIERREZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
37-2023-00017190-CU-BC-CTL
Dec 15, 2023
San Diego County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.