Products Liability – Negligent Repair in California

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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).

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.

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.

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.

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].

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

This is particularly important given that the consumer claims have been dismissed, and only negligent repair remains.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Negligent Repair ( not alleged against Ford Motor Company ) RULING : The demurrer is placed off calendar.

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.

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.

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.

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.

However, DCH fails to sufficiently demonstrate the negligent repair claim is derivative and stems from the Song-Beverly claims. SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

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.

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

(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.)

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.)

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.

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.

· 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.

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.

Negligent Repair 1.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.)

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Further, Plaintiffs sue AutoNation for its negligent repair and following damages.

[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.

.); 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.)

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.

.); 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.)

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.)

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.