Preview
Mary Arens McBride, Esq. (SBN: 282459)
Alexandria O. Pappas, Esq. (SBN 326149)
ERSKINE LAW GROUP, APC
1592 N. Batavia Street, Suite 1A ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Orange, California 92867 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Phone: (949) 777-6032
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
Fax: (714) 844-9035
Email: eservice-ca@erskinelaw.com 4/17/2024 5:13 PM
Email: apappas@erskinelaw.com By: Leslie Zepeda, DEPUTY
Attorneys for Defendant
NQ
GENERAL MOTORS LLC
00 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
10
MANUEL RODRIGUEZ and LUCIA DE LA CASE NO.: CIVSB2228894
ROSA DAVILA,
11
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GENERAL
12 Plaintiffs, MOTORS LLC’S DEMURRER TO
vs.
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
13
COMPLAINT
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; AND [Filed concurrently with GM’S Reply in
14 DOES through 10, inclusive,
1
Support ofits Motion t0 Strike Punitive
’
Damagesfrom Plaintiffs First Amended
15 Defendants. Complaint
16
Date: Apri124,2024
17
Time: 8:30 a.m.
18 Dept: S33
19
20
21
22
I. INTRODUCTION
The opposition of Plaintiffs Manuel Rodriguez and Lucia de 1a Rosa (“Plaintiffs”) further
23
establishes that GM’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action (for Fraudulent Inducement -
24
Concealment) should be sustained. Plaintiffs fail to address the fatal flaw in Plaintiffs’ pleading, z'.e.,
25
Plaintiffs have not and cannot sufficiently plead essential elements 0f a fraud cause of action.
26
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
27
A. GM Had N0 Duty t0 Disclose t0 Plaintiffs.
28
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GM’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs’ Fraudulent Inducement - Concealment claim fails as a matter of law because GM did
not have any duty t0 disclose. A duty t0 disclose arises in only four circumstances: “(1) when the
defendant is in a fiduciary relationship With the plaintiff, (2) When the defendant had exclusive
knowledge of material facts not known t0 the plaintiff, (3) when the defendant actively conceals a
material fact from the plaintiff; [or] (4) When the defendant makes partial representations but also
\OOOflQUl-bww
suppresses some material facts.” (Heliotis v. Schuman (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 646, 651, quoting 4
Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1974) Torts, §§ 459-464, pp. 2724-2728.) There is nofiduciary
relationship between GM and Plaintiffs: “It is a general rule that a vendor not in a confidential relation
t0 the buyer is not under a duty t0 make full disclosure concerning the object which he would sell.”
10 (De Spirito v. Andrews (1957) 151 Ca1.App.2d 126, 130.) And, as the foregoing cases establish, absent
11 a fiduciary relationship, the duty t0 disclose arises only when “the defendant makes representations but
GROUP
12 fails t0 disclose additional facts Which materially qualify the facts disclosed, 0r Which render the
LAW
LAW AT
13 disclosure likely t0 mislead.” (Roddenberry v. Roddenberry (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 634, 666.)
ERSKINE
ATTORNEYS
14 Plaintiffs offer no support for the argument that the Court should find an exception t0 these
THE
15 requirements here, nor do Plaintiffs offer any explanation as t0 how GM made a partial disclosure, or
16 any disclosure t0 Plaintiffs at all.
17 B. Plaintiffs’ Allegations Fail t0 Establish a Fraud Cause 0f Action.
18 Fraud must be pleaded specifically; general, conclusory allegations are insufficient. (Stansfield
19 v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 74; Nagy v. Nagy (1989) 210 Ca1.App.3d 1262, 1268.) Unlike
20 most causes 0f action that are governed by “the policy 0f liberal construction 0f the pleadings,” fraud
21 requires particularity, that is, “pleading facts which show how, when, where, t0 whom, and by what
22 means the representations were tendered.” (Stansfield, supra, at 73; Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12
23 Cal.4th 631, 645.) Every element of a fraud cause 0f action must be alleged both factually and
24 specifically. (Hall v. Dept. ofAdoptions (1975) 47 Ca1.App.3d 898, 904; Cooper v. Equity Gen. Ins.
25 (1990) 219 Ca1.App.3d 1252, 1262.)
26 “The elements 0f common law fraud in California are (1) a misrepresentation 0f a material fact
27 (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent t0 defraud; (4)
28 justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage.” (Collins v. eMachines (2011) 202 Ca1.App.4th 249,
29 259.) “The facts constituting the fraud, including every element 0f the cause 0f action, must be alleged
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GM’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1
Preview
Mary Arens McBride, Esq. (SBN: 282459) Alexandria O. Pappas, Esq. (SBN 326149) ERSKINE LAW GROUP, APC 1592 N. Batavia Street, Suite 1A ELECTRONICALLY FILED Orange, California 92867 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA Phone: (949) 777-6032 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT Fax: (714) 844-9035 Email: eservice-ca@erskinelaw.com 4/17/2024 5:13 PM Email: apappas@erskinelaw.com By: Leslie Zepeda, DEPUTY Attorneys for Defendant NQ GENERAL MOTORS LLC 00 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO 10 MANUEL RODRIGUEZ and LUCIA DE LA CASE NO.: CIVSB2228894 ROSA DAVILA, 11 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GENERAL 12 Plaintiffs, MOTORS LLC’S DEMURRER TO vs. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED 13 COMPLAINT GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; AND [Filed concurrently with GM’S Reply in 14 DOES through 10, inclusive, 1 Support ofits Motion t0 Strike Punitive ’ Damagesfrom Plaintiffs First Amended 15 Defendants. Complaint 16 Date: Apri124,2024 17 Time: 8:30 a.m. 18 Dept: S33 19 20 21 22 I. INTRODUCTION The opposition of Plaintiffs Manuel Rodriguez and Lucia de 1a Rosa (“Plaintiffs”) further 23 establishes that GM’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action (for Fraudulent Inducement - 24 Concealment) should be sustained. Plaintiffs fail to address the fatal flaw in Plaintiffs’ pleading, z'.e., 25 Plaintiffs have not and cannot sufficiently plead essential elements 0f a fraud cause of action. 26 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT 27 A. GM Had N0 Duty t0 Disclose t0 Plaintiffs. 28 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GM’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs’ Fraudulent Inducement - Concealment claim fails as a matter of law because GM did not have any duty t0 disclose. A duty t0 disclose arises in only four circumstances: “(1) when the defendant is in a fiduciary relationship With the plaintiff, (2) When the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known t0 the plaintiff, (3) when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff; [or] (4) When the defendant makes partial representations but also \OOOflQUl-bww suppresses some material facts.” (Heliotis v. Schuman (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 646, 651, quoting 4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1974) Torts, §§ 459-464, pp. 2724-2728.) There is nofiduciary relationship between GM and Plaintiffs: “It is a general rule that a vendor not in a confidential relation t0 the buyer is not under a duty t0 make full disclosure concerning the object which he would sell.” 10 (De Spirito v. Andrews (1957) 151 Ca1.App.2d 126, 130.) And, as the foregoing cases establish, absent 11 a fiduciary relationship, the duty t0 disclose arises only when “the defendant makes representations but GROUP 12 fails t0 disclose additional facts Which materially qualify the facts disclosed, 0r Which render the LAW LAW AT 13 disclosure likely t0 mislead.” (Roddenberry v. Roddenberry (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 634, 666.) ERSKINE ATTORNEYS 14 Plaintiffs offer no support for the argument that the Court should find an exception t0 these THE 15 requirements here, nor do Plaintiffs offer any explanation as t0 how GM made a partial disclosure, or 16 any disclosure t0 Plaintiffs at all. 17 B. Plaintiffs’ Allegations Fail t0 Establish a Fraud Cause 0f Action. 18 Fraud must be pleaded specifically; general, conclusory allegations are insufficient. (Stansfield 19 v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 74; Nagy v. Nagy (1989) 210 Ca1.App.3d 1262, 1268.) Unlike 20 most causes 0f action that are governed by “the policy 0f liberal construction 0f the pleadings,” fraud 21 requires particularity, that is, “pleading facts which show how, when, where, t0 whom, and by what 22 means the representations were tendered.” (Stansfield, supra, at 73; Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 23 Cal.4th 631, 645.) Every element of a fraud cause 0f action must be alleged both factually and 24 specifically. (Hall v. Dept. ofAdoptions (1975) 47 Ca1.App.3d 898, 904; Cooper v. Equity Gen. Ins. 25 (1990) 219 Ca1.App.3d 1252, 1262.) 26 “The elements 0f common law fraud in California are (1) a misrepresentation 0f a material fact 27 (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent t0 defraud; (4) 28 justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage.” (Collins v. eMachines (2011) 202 Ca1.App.4th 249, 29 259.) “The facts constituting the fraud, including every element 0f the cause 0f action, must be alleged REPLY IN SUPPORT OF GM’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1