Motion-Secondary: Rodriguez et al -v - General Motors, LLC et al Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto)
          Mary Arens McBride,       Esq.   (SBN 282459)                                               SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
          Alexandria O. Pappas, Esq. SBN. (326149)                                                    COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
          ERSKINE      LAW GROUP, APC                                                                 10/20/2023 10:03       AM
          1592 N. Batavia Street
          Orange, California 92867
          Phone: (949) 777-6032
          Fax:   (7 14) 844—9035
          Email: marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com
          Email: apappas@erskinelaw.com


          Attorneys for Defendant
          GENERAL MOTORS LLC
 \OOONQ




                                  SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
                                           FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
11
          MANUEL RODRIGUEZ                and   LUCIA DE LA ROSA                Case No.2 CIVSB2228894
12        DAVILA,
13                                                                              REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GENERAL
                            Plaintiffs,
                                                                                MOTORS LLC’S DEMURRER TO
14                                                                              PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST          AMENDED
           VS.                                                                  COMPLAINT
15
           GENERAL MOTORS             LLC; and      DOES       1   through      [Filed concurrently with GM’S Reply in Support 0f
16                                                                              its Motion t0 Strike Punitive Damagesfrom
           10, inclusive,                                                                 ’

                                                                                Plaintififv First    Amended Complaint
17                           Defendants.
                                                                                DATE: October 27, 2023
18                                                                              TIME: 8:30 a.m.
                                                                                DEPT: S33
19

                                                                                Assignedfor allpurposes         t0 the   Hon. Winston
20
                                                                                Keh in Dept. S33
21

22

23

24

25        I.       INTRODUCTION
                   The opposition of Plaintiffs Manuel Rodriguez and Lucia de                  1a   Rosa DaVila     further establishes
26
          that   GM’s demurrer      to Plaintiffs’ Fifth       Cause of Action       (for Fraudulent    Inducement-Concealment)
27
          should be sustained. Plaintiffs       fails to   address the fatal   flaw in Plaintiffs’   pleading,   i.e.,   they have not and
28
                  REPLY 1N SUPPORT OF GM’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
                  cannot sufficiently plead essential elements of a fraud cause of action.

                  II.     LEGAL ARGUMENT
                          A.             GM Had N0 Duty t0 Disclose t0 Plaintiff.
                          Plaintiffs’           Fraudulent Inducement—Concealment claim                            fails as   a matter 0f law because        GM did
 ©OOQO\Ul-I>UJN
                  not have any duty to disclose.                A    duty to disclose arises in only four circumstances: “(1)                               when     the

                  defendant    is    in a fiduciary relationship With the plaintiffs, (2)                                 When    the defendant          had exclusive

                  knowledge 0f material                 facts not   known   to the plaintiffs, (3)                 When    the defendant actively conceals a

                  material fact from the plaintiffs; [or] (4)                    when         the defendant          makes     partial representations but also


                  suppresses   some material facts.”            (Heliotis   v.   Schuman            (1 986)   181 Cal.App.3d 646, 65 1 quoting 4 Witkin,
                                                                                                                                              ,




10                Summary 0f             Cal.     Law    (8th ed.   1974) Torts, §§ 459-464, pp. 2724-2728.) There                                 is    n0 fiduciary

11 relationship                     between           GM and Plaintiffs: “It       is       a general rule that a vendor not in a confidential relation

12 to the buyer                     is   not under a duty t0        make   full   disclosure concerning the obj ect                 which he would          sell.”   (De

13 Spirito                v.   Andrews (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d                      126, 130.)          And,    as the foregoing cases establish, absent a

14 fiduciary relationship, the duty to disclose arises only                                            when     “the defendant       makes representations but

15 fails t0 disclose additional facts Which materially qualify the facts disclosed, or which render the

16 disclosure likely t0 mislead.” (Roddenberry                                    v.    Roddenberry (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 634, 666.)                        Plaintiffs

17 offer no support for their argument that the Court should                                             find an exception          to these requirements here,

18 nor do they offer any explanation as t0                               how      GM made a partial disclosure, or any disclosure t0 them at
19                all.


20                        B.             Plaintiffs’ Allegations Fail t0 Establish a                     Fraud Cause 0f Action.

21                        Fraud must be pleaded specifically; general, conclusory allegations are insufficient. (Stansfield v.

22 Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 74; Nagy                                          v.   Nagy (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d               1262, 1268.) Unlike most

23 causes of action that are governed by “the policy 0f liberal construction of the pleadings,” fraud requires

24                particularity, that           is,   “pleading facts which show how, when, Where, to                          whom, and by What means               the

25 representations were tendered.” (Stansfield, supra,                                          at 73;   Lazar      v.   Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631,

26 645.) Every element 0f a fraud cause of action must be alleged both factually and specifically. (Hall                                                                v.


27 Dept. ofAdoptions (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 898, 904; Cooper                                                    v.   Equity Gen.     Ins.   (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d

28 1252, 1262.)

29                        “The elements of common law fraud                        in California are (1) a misrepresentation                      0f a material      fact


                               REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GM’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
                                                                                                1