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

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC                                            ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto)
     Tionna Grace Carvalho (SBN 299010)                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF GALIFORNIA
                                                                               COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
     James L. Carroll (SBN 243684)
                                                                               4/10/2024 10:20 AM
     1888 Century Park East, 19" FI.
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 929-4900
     Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
     emailservices@slpattorney.com
     tcarvalho@slpattorney.com
     jicarroll@slpattorney.com


     Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
     MANUEL RODRIGUEZ and LUCIA DE LA ROSA DAVILA



                       SUPERIOR COURT         OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
                                   COUNTY     OF SAN BERNARDINO
11
     MANUEL RODRIGUEZ and LUCIA DE LA | Case No.: CIVSB2228894
12   ROSA DAVILA,
13                                                 Hon. Winston Keh
                    Plaintiffs,                    Dept. $33
14
         VS.
15                                                 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
     GENERAL MOTORS           LLC; and DOES   1    DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO FIRST
16   through 10, inclusive,                        AMENDED COMPLAINT
17                Defendants.
                                                   [Filed concurrently with Plaintiffs’ Opposition
18
                                                   to Defendant’s Motion to Strike Punitive
19                                                 Damages]

20
                                                   Hearing on Demurrer — with Motion to Strike
21                                                  Date:   February 6, 2024
                                                   Time:    8:30 a.m.
22
                                                   Dept:    $33
23

24

25

26

27

28

                  PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
TABLE OF CONTENTS

            INTRODUCTION

     IL     LEGAL ANALYSIS

            A   Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint Contains All Essential Elements of

                Fraudulent Inducement — Concealment and Therefore Defendants’ Motion

                Must Fail

                A “Transactional Relationship” Is Not Required Under California Law For The

                Manufacturer To Have A Duty To Disclose .

                1.    The Transmission Defect Is A Material Fact

10              2.     The Transmission Defect Poses Safety Risks

11              3.The Transmission Defect Arose During the Warranty Period

12   Ill.   CONCLUSION.

13

14
15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28                                                      ii
                     PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT