On September 21, 2020 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Brussard, James,
and
Does 1 Through 20,
General Motors, Llca Delaware Limited Liability Company,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
OCIGINAL
Mary Arens McBride, Esq. (SBN: 282459)
Kyle B. Roybal, Esq. (SBN: 291520)
L ‘
SUPER'ORFrcli
k .
_, umawmr-
COUNTY «3F SAM BERNAQQSQM
[\J
ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC SAN BERNARmNo ms‘rRICT
1576 N. Batavia St., Suite A
Orange, CA 92867 APR 1 2 2021
Tel: (949) 777-6032
f2
Fax: (714) 844-9035 o
NQUI-bw
BY
Email: marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com CH I {NE LOCKMAN, Deputy
Email: kroyba1@erskinelaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant,
FAX GENERAL MOTORS LLC
BY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER
11
12 JAMES BRUSSARD, an individual, CASE NO.: CIVD82019921
13
Plaintiff,
14 DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS
v. LLC’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
15 DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware
AMENDED COMPLAINT
16 Limited Liability Company; and DOES
1 through 20, inclusive,
17
DATE: April 2 1, 2021
Defendants.
18 TIME: 9:00 a.m.
DEPT: 825
19
Action Filed: September 21, 2020
20
Trial Date: None Set
21
ASSIGNED T0:
22 Hon. Elia V. Pirozzi
in Dept. $25
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE l 0F 9
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF‘S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
I. INTRODUCTION
In failing to address the fatal flaws in his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiffs
opposition t0 General Motors LLC’s (“GM”) demurrer only underscores why the demurrer should
th be sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff’s Opposition is heavy on the theoretical and
conspicuously light on the fact allegations in this case and citations t0 his own FAC. That is
because Plaintiff has not pled and cannot plead essential elements of Fraudulent Inducement
-
\DOONGUI Concealment, cannot establish a duty to disclose, and should not be able avoid the Economic Loss
‘
Rule on a technicality, especially since GM has consistently raised this issue, even in its meet and
confer correspondence served prior t0 filing its demurrer. GM’s demurrer as to the Third Cause 0f
10 Action for Fraudulent Inducement-Concealment should be sustained without leave to amend for
11 the reasons stated herein.
12 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
13
A. Plaintiff’s FAC Fails to State a Viable Claim for Fraudulent Inducement-
14 Concealment.
Plaintiff’ s Fraudulent Inducement-Concealment claim is not pleaded with the sufficiency
15
16 and particularity required under California law. Fraud must be pled in the complaint specifically;
general, conclusory allegations are not sufficient. (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d
17
18 59, 74; Nagy v. Nagy (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1262, 1268.) Unlike most causes of action where
19 there is a “policy of liberal construction of the pleadings,” fraud requires pafiicularity, that is,
20 “pleading facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations
21 were tendered.” (Stansfield, 220 Cal.App.3d at 73; Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Ca1.4th 63 1,
22 645.) Every element 0f a fraud cause 0f action must be alleged both factually and specifically.
23 (Hall v. Dept. ofAdoptions (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 898, 904; Cooper v. Equity General Ins. (1990)
24 219 Cal.App.3d 1252, 1262.) Plaintiff’s FAC fails to meet these standards.
25 Allegations of fraudulent inducement is held t0 the same particularly standards under
26 California law, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s argument to the contrary. (See Lazar, 12 Ca1.4th at 645
27 action” subject to the
(describing fraudulent inducement as a “traditional fraud cause 0f
28 particularity requirement under California law). Cf. Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard C0. (C.D. Cal.
PAGE 2 0F 9
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT 0F DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Document Filed Date
April 12, 2021
Case Filing Date
September 21, 2020
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
OCIGINAL Mary Arens McBride, Esq. (SBN: 282459) Kyle B. Roybal, Esq. (SBN: 291520) L ‘ SUPER'ORFrcli k . _, umawmr- COUNTY «3F SAM BERNAQQSQM [\J ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC SAN BERNARmNo ms‘rRICT 1576 N. Batavia St., Suite A Orange, CA 92867 APR 1 2 2021 Tel: (949) 777-6032 f2 Fax: (714) 844-9035 o NQUI-bw BY Email: marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com CH I {NE LOCKMAN, Deputy Email: kroyba1@erskinelaw.com Attorneys for Defendant, FAX GENERAL MOTORS LLC BY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER 11 12 JAMES BRUSSARD, an individual, CASE NO.: CIVD82019921 13 Plaintiff, 14 DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS v. LLC’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF 15 DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 17 DATE: April 2 1, 2021 Defendants. 18 TIME: 9:00 a.m. DEPT: 825 19 Action Filed: September 21, 2020 20 Trial Date: None Set 21 ASSIGNED T0: 22 Hon. Elia V. Pirozzi in Dept. $25 23 24 25 26 27 28 PAGE l 0F 9 DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF‘S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION In failing to address the fatal flaws in his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiffs opposition t0 General Motors LLC’s (“GM”) demurrer only underscores why the demurrer should th be sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff’s Opposition is heavy on the theoretical and conspicuously light on the fact allegations in this case and citations t0 his own FAC. That is because Plaintiff has not pled and cannot plead essential elements of Fraudulent Inducement - \DOONGUI Concealment, cannot establish a duty to disclose, and should not be able avoid the Economic Loss ‘ Rule on a technicality, especially since GM has consistently raised this issue, even in its meet and confer correspondence served prior t0 filing its demurrer. GM’s demurrer as to the Third Cause 0f 10 Action for Fraudulent Inducement-Concealment should be sustained without leave to amend for 11 the reasons stated herein. 12 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT 13 A. Plaintiff’s FAC Fails to State a Viable Claim for Fraudulent Inducement- 14 Concealment. Plaintiff’ s Fraudulent Inducement-Concealment claim is not pleaded with the sufficiency 15 16 and particularity required under California law. Fraud must be pled in the complaint specifically; general, conclusory allegations are not sufficient. (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 17 18 59, 74; Nagy v. Nagy (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1262, 1268.) Unlike most causes of action where 19 there is a “policy of liberal construction of the pleadings,” fraud requires pafiicularity, that is, 20 “pleading facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations 21 were tendered.” (Stansfield, 220 Cal.App.3d at 73; Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Ca1.4th 63 1, 22 645.) Every element 0f a fraud cause 0f action must be alleged both factually and specifically. 23 (Hall v. Dept. ofAdoptions (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 898, 904; Cooper v. Equity General Ins. (1990) 24 219 Cal.App.3d 1252, 1262.) Plaintiff’s FAC fails to meet these standards. 25 Allegations of fraudulent inducement is held t0 the same particularly standards under 26 California law, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s argument to the contrary. (See Lazar, 12 Ca1.4th at 645 27 action” subject to the (describing fraudulent inducement as a “traditional fraud cause 0f 28 particularity requirement under California law). Cf. Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard C0. (C.D. Cal. PAGE 2 0F 9 DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT 0F DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT