Preview
pd
NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH LLP
Michael J. Hurvitz (SBN 249050)
mike.hurvitz@nelsonmullins.com SUPERIOR N‘U‘FT '3"
"V W
w: LALIFuRNIA
‘
m
x
Ian G. Schuler (SBN 275052) counTvm mu 22w
SAN aF-w-v ”n: r F*Btéér'r‘iiéNrO
ian.schuler@nelsonmullins.com
Ariel N. Redfern (SBN 3413 14) fixUG l JZL}
‘
6
ariel.redfern@nelsonmullins.com
750 B Street, Suite 2200 I
‘2?
BY
San Diego, CA 92101
"'7’”
_-"
cooqoxmgww
Telephone: 619.489.61 10 LAURA BRUCK. DEPUTY
Facsimile: 619.821.2834
Attorneys for Defendant
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LLP
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO
EDUARDO ESPINOSA and CELIA ESPINOSA,
SCARBOROUGH
‘
Case No. CIVSB2207097
LAW
8:
AT
DIEGO
Plaintiff, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
RILEY INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
ITS DEMURRER TO THE THIRD
ATTORNEYS
SAN
vs.
MULLINS
CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
‘
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC, a FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT IN
‘
California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
NELSON
‘
inclusive,
Judge: HON. WINSTON KEH
Defendant.
Date: August 18, 2022
Time: 8:30 am.
NNNNNNNNNNHHHHr—IHy—AHH
Dept: S33
Trial Date:
Action Filed: April 6, 2022
WQO‘x'JIbUJNP—‘OWOONQMAWNHO
I
Defendant American Honda Motor CO., Inc. (“AHM”) submits this Reply in support of its
Demurrer to the Third Cause of Action in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
///
1
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS DEMURRER TO THE THIRD
CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT IN PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
I. INTRODUCTION
for August 18, 2022.
timely filed Demurrer and Motion t0
Strike is set
Hearing on AHM’s
before August 2022. After not receiving Plaintiffs’
Plaintiffs’ opposition was, therefore, due on o-r S,
opposition on August 11, 2022, the date
AHM’s reply brief was due, AHM filed a Notice of Non—
opposition to AHM’s Demurrer
opposition. On August 12, 2022, Plaintiffs filed and served their
reply briefs in support of concurrently
KOOOQOUI-bww
and Motion t0 Strike. Accordingly, AHM now files its
its
filed Demurrer and Motion t0 Strike.
and case law on which AHM’s
Plaintiffs’ Opposition mischaracterizes the legal standards
made in the Complaint. Without the law or facts
Motion rests and ignores the context of allegations
make it appear they have pled sufficient
LLP
10 on their side, Plaintiffs repeatedly misconstrue the issues to
concealment cause of action, but that is not the case. For example, as predicted,
11 facts for a fraudulent
SCARBOROUGH
knowledge” alone is enough to confer
LAW
12 Plaintiffs stop short in the duty analysis, claiming “exclusive
AT
8r
the practical, common-sense issue addressed
DIEGO
in
RILEY
13 a duty to disclose, but they completely ignore
ATTORNEYS
SAN
be a direct transaction for the defendant to communicat
e
14 Bigler—Engler, which is that there needs to
MULLINS
Plaintiffs cite three nonbinding, inapplicable
NELSON
15
16
17
information. Instead of addressing the issue head on,
federal cases all of which were decided
Court on the Economic Loss Doctrine issue by repeatedly
m Bigler-Engler. Similarly, Plaintiffs misdirect the
referring to case law which applies to
no contract alleged between Plaintiffs and AHM. There is
18 breach of contract claims. Here, there is
who receives no benefit from a contract, could induce another to
19 no explanation how a third-party,
have not addressed the heart of the Economic Loss
20 enter into that contract. Moreover, Plaintiffs
the only damages at issue in their tort claim are purely economic in nature,
21 Doctrine, which is that
the claim barred. As discussed in more detail below, Plaintiffs’ failure to squarely
22 meaning is
AHM’s demurrer is a tacit admission that their arguments lack merit.
23 address the issues raised in
24 The Court should, accordingly, sustain AHM’s demurrer without leave to amend.
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 ///
2
RT OF ITS DEMURRER TO THE THIRD
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPO
ALMEN T IN PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT CONCE
Preview
pd NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP Michael J. Hurvitz (SBN 249050) mike.hurvitz@nelsonmullins.com SUPERIOR N‘U‘FT '3" "V W w: LALIFuRNIA ‘ m x Ian G. Schuler (SBN 275052) counTvm mu 22w SAN aF-w-v ”n: r F*Btéér'r‘iiéNrO ian.schuler@nelsonmullins.com Ariel N. Redfern (SBN 3413 14) fixUG l JZL} ‘ 6 ariel.redfern@nelsonmullins.com 750 B Street, Suite 2200 I ‘2? BY San Diego, CA 92101 "'7’” _-" cooqoxmgww Telephone: 619.489.61 10 LAURA BRUCK. DEPUTY Facsimile: 619.821.2834 Attorneys for Defendant AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LLP COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO EDUARDO ESPINOSA and CELIA ESPINOSA, SCARBOROUGH ‘ Case No. CIVSB2207097 LAW 8: AT DIEGO Plaintiff, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., RILEY INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS DEMURRER TO THE THIRD ATTORNEYS SAN vs. MULLINS CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ‘ AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC, a FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT IN ‘ California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT NELSON ‘ inclusive, Judge: HON. WINSTON KEH Defendant. Date: August 18, 2022 Time: 8:30 am. NNNNNNNNNNHHHHr—IHy—AHH Dept: S33 Trial Date: Action Filed: April 6, 2022 WQO‘x'JIbUJNP—‘OWOONQMAWNHO I Defendant American Honda Motor CO., Inc. (“AHM”) submits this Reply in support of its Demurrer to the Third Cause of Action in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. / / / / / / / / / / / / /// 1 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS DEMURRER TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT IN PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION for August 18, 2022. timely filed Demurrer and Motion t0 Strike is set Hearing on AHM’s before August 2022. After not receiving Plaintiffs’ Plaintiffs’ opposition was, therefore, due on o-r S, opposition on August 11, 2022, the date AHM’s reply brief was due, AHM filed a Notice of Non— opposition to AHM’s Demurrer opposition. On August 12, 2022, Plaintiffs filed and served their reply briefs in support of concurrently KOOOQOUI-bww and Motion t0 Strike. Accordingly, AHM now files its its filed Demurrer and Motion t0 Strike. and case law on which AHM’s Plaintiffs’ Opposition mischaracterizes the legal standards made in the Complaint. Without the law or facts Motion rests and ignores the context of allegations make it appear they have pled sufficient LLP 10 on their side, Plaintiffs repeatedly misconstrue the issues to concealment cause of action, but that is not the case. For example, as predicted, 11 facts for a fraudulent SCARBOROUGH knowledge” alone is enough to confer LAW 12 Plaintiffs stop short in the duty analysis, claiming “exclusive AT 8r the practical, common-sense issue addressed DIEGO in RILEY 13 a duty to disclose, but they completely ignore ATTORNEYS SAN be a direct transaction for the defendant to communicat e 14 Bigler—Engler, which is that there needs to MULLINS Plaintiffs cite three nonbinding, inapplicable NELSON 15 16 17 information. Instead of addressing the issue head on, federal cases all of which were decided Court on the Economic Loss Doctrine issue by repeatedly m Bigler-Engler. Similarly, Plaintiffs misdirect the referring to case law which applies to no contract alleged between Plaintiffs and AHM. There is 18 breach of contract claims. Here, there is who receives no benefit from a contract, could induce another to 19 no explanation how a third-party, have not addressed the heart of the Economic Loss 20 enter into that contract. Moreover, Plaintiffs the only damages at issue in their tort claim are purely economic in nature, 21 Doctrine, which is that the claim barred. As discussed in more detail below, Plaintiffs’ failure to squarely 22 meaning is AHM’s demurrer is a tacit admission that their arguments lack merit. 23 address the issues raised in 24 The Court should, accordingly, sustain AHM’s demurrer without leave to amend. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 /// 2 RT OF ITS DEMURRER TO THE THIRD AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPO ALMEN T IN PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT CONCE