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

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Mary Arens McBride,         Esq. (SBN: 282459)
     Alexandria O. Pappas, Esq.           (SBN 326149)                               ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto                )




     ERSKINE LAW GROUP, APC                                                          SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFOI ?NIA
     1592 N. Batavia       Street, Suite   1A                                        COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINC                  )


     Orange, California 92867                                                        1/30/2024 10:44      AM
     Phone: (949) 777-6032
     Fax:     (714) 844-9035
     Email: marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com
     Email: apappas@erskinelaw.com

     Attorneys for Defendant
     GENERAL MOTORS LLC


                           SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                           COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10

11
     MANUEL RODRIGUEZ and LUCIA DE LA                           CASE NO.: CIVSB2228894
     ROSA DAVILA,
12
                                                                REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GENERAL
                       Plaintiffs,                              MOTORS LLC’S MOTION TO STRIKE
13    vs.
                                                                PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM
                                                                PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
                                                                COMPLAINT
14    GENERAL MOTORS, LLC.; AND
      DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,                             [Filed concurrently with       GM’S Reply          in
15                                                                                                             ’
                                                                Support ofits Demurrer        t0 Plaintififv        First
                       Defendants.                              Amended Complaint]
16

17
                                                                Date: February       6,   2024
18                                                              Time: 8:30 a.m.
                                                                Dept: S33
19

20

21

22   I.       INTRODUCTION

23            Plaintiffs   Manuel Rodriguez and Alyssa Ochoa’s opposition            t0   GM’S motion      t0 strike fails


24   t0 address the fatal     flaws   in their pleading.    As   GM   explained in   its   motion, Plaintiffs’ punitive


25   damage claim should be        stricken because (1) Plaintiffs have not pleaded a Viable fraud claim, (2)


26   punitive   damages     are not available under the remaining causes of action,         and   (3) Plaintiffs    have not

27   pleaded facts from Which        it   can reasonably be inferred that   GM acted With malice, oppression, 0r
28   fraud.     Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages must be stricken from the First


            REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GM’S MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM PLAINTIFFS’
                                      FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
     Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

     II.        ARGUMENT
                A.         Plaintiffs   Have Not Alleged Facts Sufficient                 t0 State a    Claim for Fraud.

                Plaintiffs’      FAC and opposition merely state,            in conclusory fashion, that           GM had (0r should
     have had) knowledge 0f alleged “defects,” but                   Plaintiffs failed t0 plead         any   facts   about   how   GM
                                                             ’
     knew 0r should have known that Plaintiffs                   vehicle had these “defects” at the time Plaintiffs bought

     it.   As   GM has explained in depth in         its   reply in support 0f its demurrer, Plaintiffs have not stated

     a Viable cause of action for fraud. Those arguments are incorporated by reference.

                B.         Plaintiffs   Have Not Alleged Viable Claims                  t0   Support Punitive Damages.

10              Punitive    damages are governed by          Civil   Code         section 3294: “In an action for the breach 0f

11   an obligation not arisingfrom contract, Where                   it is   proven by clear and convincing evidence                that


12   the defendant has been guilty 0f oppression, fraud, 0r malice, the plaintiffs, in addition to the actual

13   damages,        may   recover damages for the sake 0f example and by                     way 0f punishing        the defendant.”

14   (Civ. Code, § 3294(a) (emphasis added).)

15              The words “oppression”, “fraud” and “malice”                      are specifically defined:

                           (1)   “Malice” means conduct which                is   intended by the defendant t0
16
                           cause injury to the plaintiffs or despicable conduct Which                   is   carried
17                         on by     the defendant With a willful            and conscious disregard of the
                           rights or safety   0f others.
18
                           (2)   “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subj ects a person t0
19                         cruel   and unjust hardship       in conscious disregard             0f that person’s
                           rights.
20
                           (3)    “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, 0r
21                         concealment 0f a material fact known to the defendant with the
                           intention on the part 0f the defendant 0f thereby depriving a person
22                         0f property 0r legal rights 0r otherwise causing injury.

23   (CiV.   Code     § 3294(0).) Section      3294 was revised           effective January     1,   1988, t0 clarify that conduct

24   must be despicable before punitive damages could be awarded. The amendments                                      also provide for


25   proof 0f such conduct by clear and convincing evidence.

26              In pleading punitive damages, a party must plead facts from which                             it   can reasonably be

27   inferred that the defendant acted with malice, oppression, 0r fraud under Section 3294:                               “The mere

28   allegation an intentional tort           was committed         is    not sufficient t0 warrant an award 0f punitive

                                                                      1

           REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GM’S MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM PLAINTIFFS’
                                     FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT