On April 23, 2021 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Lopez Magallon, Alicia,
and
Does 1-10,
General Motors, Llc,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
‘
Tionna Dolin (SBN 299010)
e-mail: tdolin@slpattorney.com
Debora Rabieian (SBN 315022)
e-mail: drabieianfiDslpattomeycom
STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES F l
-
SUPERsorz
COURT 6% CALIFo
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARmfig'A
1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
Los Angeles, CA 90067
SEP 0 2 2021
Telephone: (3 0) 929-4900
'l
Facsimile: (3 10) 943-3838 I /
BY ,44/w—mr»
Attorneys for Plaintiff, ROBWK'BEJ-ZMEIER, DEPUTY
ALICIA LOPEZ MAGALLON
SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
'10
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
11
ALICIA LOPEZ MAGALLON, Case No.2 CIVSB21 1 1706
12
13 Plaintiff, Case Initiated: May 7, 2021
14 VS. Hon. Gilbert Ochoa
Dept: 824
15
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
16
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE
17 Defendants PUNITIVE DAMAGES
18 [Filed concurrently with Plaintg'fl’s Opposition
t0Defendant ’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s
19 Complaint]
20
Date: September 16, 2021
21 Time: 9:00 am.
Dept: $24
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDANT’S MOTION To STRXKE
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant GENERAL MOTORS, LLC (“GM” or “Defendant”) seeks to stfike Plaintiff
ALICIA LOPEZ MAGALLON’s (“Plaintiff”) prayer of punitive damages on two grounds, neither
of which hold up under scrutiny.
First, GM contends that, for the reasons set forth in its concurrently filed Demurrer
Plaintiff’s fraud claim is insufficiently pled. GM then argues that because Plaintiffs punitive
damages prayer depends on the Viability of the fraud claim, the ostensible failure of the fraud claim
means that the punitive damages prayer fails as well.
As GM’s Demurrer goes, however, so goes this contention. As explained more fully in
10 Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Demurrer, GM’s arguments—that the fraud cause 0f action is
ll insufficiently pled. and barred by the economic loss rule—are not merely wrong, they are
12 egregiously wrong, and demonstrate a profound confusion about fraud jurisprudence. In truth
13 Plaintiff s fraud claim is actionable and, therefore, so is their prayer for punitive damages.
l4 Second, GM argues that Plaintiff cannot seek punitive damages under their remaining
15 causes of action either (i.e., Causes of Action 1-5, which allege violations of the Song-Beverl)
16 Consumer Warranty Act and GM’s breach of express and implied warranties). GM is wrong on
'17 this score as well. The weight of authority permits a plaintiff to seek punitive damages under the
18 Song-Beverly Act.
19 Finally, it bears noting that GM wishes to strike Plaintiff’s punitive damages prayer frorr
20 the Complaint in its entirety. For this to occur, though, both of GM’S arguments mus
21 simultaneously be correct: i.e., (l) Plaintiff” s fraud claim does not support punitive damages and (2
Song-Beverly Act claims d0 not support punitive damages. However, if Plaintiff’s fraud
22 Plaintiff’s
01"
23 claim is well pied, then the punitive damages claim survives regardless 0f whether, as a matter
punitive damages
law, punitive damages are available under the Song-Beverly Act. Conversely,
if
24
01’
25 are available through the Song—Beverly Act, then the punitive damages claim survives regardless
explained below, neither 0f GM’:
26 whether GM successfully demurs to Plaintiff’s fraud claim. As
27 arguments iS correct.
28
1
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDAh-"r’s MOTION To STRIKE
Document Filed Date
September 02, 2021
Case Filing Date
April 23, 2021
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
‘ Tionna Dolin (SBN 299010) e-mail: tdolin@slpattorney.com Debora Rabieian (SBN 315022) e-mail: drabieianfiDslpattomeycom STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES F l - SUPERsorz COURT 6% CALIFo A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARmfig'A 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT Los Angeles, CA 90067 SEP 0 2 2021 Telephone: (3 0) 929-4900 'l Facsimile: (3 10) 943-3838 I / BY ,44/w—mr» Attorneys for Plaintiff, ROBWK'BEJ-ZMEIER, DEPUTY ALICIA LOPEZ MAGALLON SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA '10 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 11 ALICIA LOPEZ MAGALLON, Case No.2 CIVSB21 1 1706 12 13 Plaintiff, Case Initiated: May 7, 2021 14 VS. Hon. Gilbert Ochoa Dept: 824 15 GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO 16 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE 17 Defendants PUNITIVE DAMAGES 18 [Filed concurrently with Plaintg'fl’s Opposition t0Defendant ’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s 19 Complaint] 20 Date: September 16, 2021 21 Time: 9:00 am. Dept: $24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDANT’S MOTION To STRXKE I. INTRODUCTION Defendant GENERAL MOTORS, LLC (“GM” or “Defendant”) seeks to stfike Plaintiff ALICIA LOPEZ MAGALLON’s (“Plaintiff”) prayer of punitive damages on two grounds, neither of which hold up under scrutiny. First, GM contends that, for the reasons set forth in its concurrently filed Demurrer Plaintiff’s fraud claim is insufficiently pled. GM then argues that because Plaintiffs punitive damages prayer depends on the Viability of the fraud claim, the ostensible failure of the fraud claim means that the punitive damages prayer fails as well. As GM’s Demurrer goes, however, so goes this contention. As explained more fully in 10 Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Demurrer, GM’s arguments—that the fraud cause 0f action is ll insufficiently pled. and barred by the economic loss rule—are not merely wrong, they are 12 egregiously wrong, and demonstrate a profound confusion about fraud jurisprudence. In truth 13 Plaintiff s fraud claim is actionable and, therefore, so is their prayer for punitive damages. l4 Second, GM argues that Plaintiff cannot seek punitive damages under their remaining 15 causes of action either (i.e., Causes of Action 1-5, which allege violations of the Song-Beverl) 16 Consumer Warranty Act and GM’s breach of express and implied warranties). GM is wrong on '17 this score as well. The weight of authority permits a plaintiff to seek punitive damages under the 18 Song-Beverly Act. 19 Finally, it bears noting that GM wishes to strike Plaintiff’s punitive damages prayer frorr 20 the Complaint in its entirety. For this to occur, though, both of GM’S arguments mus 21 simultaneously be correct: i.e., (l) Plaintiff” s fraud claim does not support punitive damages and (2 Song-Beverly Act claims d0 not support punitive damages. However, if Plaintiff’s fraud 22 Plaintiff’s 01" 23 claim is well pied, then the punitive damages claim survives regardless 0f whether, as a matter punitive damages law, punitive damages are available under the Song-Beverly Act. Conversely, if 24 01’ 25 are available through the Song—Beverly Act, then the punitive damages claim survives regardless explained below, neither 0f GM’: 26 whether GM successfully demurs to Plaintiff’s fraud claim. As 27 arguments iS correct. 28 1 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDAh-"r’s MOTION To STRIKE