Preview
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
H. PAUL EFSTRATIS, SB# 242373
E-Mail: Paul.Efstratis@lewisbrisbois.com
TAYLOR F. SULLIVAN, SB# 297014
WN
E-Mail: Taylor.Sullivan@lewisbrisbois.com FILED
Superior
MATTHEW K. McCULLOUGH, SB# Court of Califo
WH
309351 County of Piacer rate
E-Mail: Matthew.McCullough@lewisbrisbois.com
APR 10 2020
we
333 Bush Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, California 94104-2872
Oo
Telephone: 415.362.2580 Jake Chatters
xXcutive Officer & Clerk
Facsimile: 415.434.0882 af ie Lucatuorto, Deputy
NH
Attorneys for Defendants Ford Motor Company
and Future Ford, Inc.
NN
CO
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Co
COUNTY OF PLACER
10
11
DAVID F. TIBBETT and DEANNA CASE NO. SCV0042147
12 TIBBETT,
DEFENDANTS FORD MOTOR
13 Plaintiffs, COMPANY AND FUTURE FORD, INC.’S
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
14 VS. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND
bh) FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware AMENDED COMPLAINT
Corporation; FUTURE FORD, INC., a
16 California Corporation; and DOES | through [Filed Concurrently with Notice of Demurrer
10, inclusive, & Demurrer; Declaration of Taylor F.
17 Sullivan; Request for Judicial Notice; and
Defendants. [Proposed] Order]
18
Date: July 24, 2020
19 Time: 8:30a.m.
Dept.: 31
20
FAX
Action Filed: November 19, 2018
21 FAC Filed: December 24, 2018
SAC Filed: March 6, 2020
22 Trial Date: None Set
BY
23
24
25
26
27
LEWIS 28
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Toc
Table of Contents
WN
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND FACTS ....0....c.cccccccsssssssssesesesesesessssssessscscseseens
1
WH
&—
Ii, LEGAL STANDARD TO SUSTAIN A DEMURRER ...........cccececccscscseeseseseeeeseseseseseseees
2
nan
Ii. BGT Tc ccscourexannnsneanenercnvssonensmansascenseiwarese
wesweieecshhhSaahShibsSctseiedonsnrenenananenstveroreensunere
2
NH
A. Plaintiffs’ Causes of Action Remain Barred by the Statute of Limitations. .............
2
i, Plaintiffs’ Causes of Action are Facially Untimely. ...............0.....00:000
2
2. Plaintiffs’ “Delayed Discovery” and “Fraudulent Concealment”
Allegations Are Legally Insufficient Because Plaintiffs Have
Again Failed in their SAC to Plead — And Cannot Plead -
Specific Facts Showing an Inability to Make Earlier Discovery
10 Despite Reasonable Diligence. ............ecececccccceseeseeeseeseeseeseeeeeeseeseeseeseenee
3
11 3. Equitable Estoppel Does Not Apply, and Plaintiffs Apparently
PUTOG cx csesesenassssascncemasamnesmennenenenommeemc
arm esuucammee aosNaNRTMOaeTnoRNEES 7
12
B. Plaintiffs’ Fraud-Based Claims Fail For Several Independent Reason............. 8
13
1. Fraud must be pleaded with particularity. 0.0.0.0... ccccceeeseeeeseeeeeteeees
8
14
a Plaintiffs’ Concealment and Misrepresentation Allegations are
15 TNstTICIOND AS & MALES Of LAW si icnccmnmomammnananmmmammmmsn 9
16 Plaintiffs’ CLRA Claim Fails as a Matter of Law.......... cece ceeeeeeeseeeteeeeee
12
17 Plaintiffs’ Claims are Barred by the Economic Loss Rule. ..........0.....
eee 13
18 Permitting Plaintiff Leave to Amend Again Would Waste Judicial
ROSOUPLCES. 0... eee eecceeeceescesseessceeseenseceseceseecscesscceseceuecessecessececsssesseceseecessesensaeeaeenaes
14
19
IV. CON CLUSION vrsnscccnssuesxenns
exewsenenunsscenepannncncsursussuaeaneonemesnnngsncorncemeyensrecmmenmenemmnumcones
15
20
FAX
21
22
BY
23
24
25
26
27
LEWIS 28
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
& SMITH
LP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. Department of Industrial
WD
Relanons (1995)4) Cal App Ath 298, 302 sessscmnsrcccccrenssamananaesoiaasnsmnameenermmnnsancenvesns
17
ND ye
Barker v.Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.4th 42, 49-51 cee eeeeseeseeeeeees
4
mn
Biahk v: Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal 3d 311, 318. .....n-2ncnostincnesisachinneshshnnsanssesaiss
sasasasasdaxa
dace
coeasaesnoxaunnwens
a
Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 248 wo...cceccesceseeseeeseeseeeeeeeeeeees
9
Buckland v. Threshold Enterprises (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 798, 811 oo... ceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 14
fe
Dalton v.East Bay Municipal Utility Dist. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1566, 1570-71... cece 17
CS
E-Fab, Inc. v.Accountants, Inc. Services (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1316 wee eeeeee esses
3
10
Engalla v.Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 971 cece eesceeeseeseesseeeeeeeees
9
11
Food Safe Net Services v. Eco Safe Systems USA, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1118, 16
12
13 Fox'v, Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Gal At 197, SOB ssssscasascssnsevesassesnannannnnannsananonxavaroreseess
3
14 Geertz v. Ausonio (1992)-4 Cal App Ath 1363, 1367-1368... sisscsconssasscssatsaaiensasasasarsmnmasneamnasnsnnnsnn
5
15 Gentry v.eBay, inc, (2002) 99 Cal.App.Ath 816, 835...........0-cssicsnisessstennscacianns
ss snmnanrenienenesannnne
14
16 Heckendorn vy.
City of San Marino (1986) 42 Cal.3d 481, 486........cccscseeseseeseeeeeeteeeeeeeteeeeneeees
2,17
17 Heliotis v.Schuman (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 646, 651...
ceccesessscessseessesseeeseesseeeeeseeneeeneeseeenees
11
18 Herremans v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. CV 14-02363 MMM PJWYV, 2014 WL 5017843,
Be PS:(Ge BBs Cie BigDO vcorecee errcremaeeenecreeeneeeenemmenenmeneesenscerrereremamenanenauwomnnennnsnls
6
19
Herron v. Best Buy Co. Inc. (E.D.Cal. 2013) 924 F.Supp.2d 1161, 1176 .........cssescersserersecseeees
13
20
Hoffman v. 162 North Wolfe LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1187-1189 .....eeeeeeeseseseeees 11
FAX
21
John B. v.Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1188 12
.......ccscseseeeseseeeeeeeeseneesseseesstesseeeeeeees
22
Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, LLLO-11 11 eee 4
eeeteseteeteteteeeeseseeeteeeessseeeseenenes
BY
23
Jones v. Conoco Phillips Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1198.) 10
.....cceeessesseseeseeesessteesessneees
24
Kamen v.Lindley (2001) 94 Cal. App.4th 197, 201 2
......:cccsesesseeseeseeseeseeeeseessensessesesesesesesessesseneenes
25
Kearns v. Ford Motor Co. (9th Cir. 2009) 567 F.3d 1120.) 14
....ccccscseseseereereeseeseessesseeseeeeesseneenenees
26
Krieger v.Nick Alexander Imports, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 205, 213-215 3
....ssssesesseseeeeneeeeeee
27
Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645 9
...cccccceseseseseseesessessseeseseneesenensenenesnenecnenecseseeees
LEWIS 28
BRISBOIS 1894662.3 ii
BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO
& SMI LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Linear Technology Corp. v.Applied Materials, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 115, 132 .............12
Mason’. Drug inc. (1939) 31 Cal App. 697, 103 scscncscssscasn0.caonmacrasmancenmnamnmananmaneveienne
10
~
Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1292.0... eceeseeseeeeees15
a
no.
Meyer 'v.Sprint Spectrum LP. (2009) 45 Cal Athi634, 64.1.ccccsssisissosscscocsccsraascsnvencvonsesonnssnecamouacaes
15
Mills v.Forestex Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 625, 641 oo... cececcsesscsseeseeesssseesscsssessessessessesessesaeees
5
i |
Moore v. Apple, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2014) 73 F.Supp.3d 1191, 1201... eee eeeeeeseeeeseeseeeeeeeeseseeeeees
15
nS
Nagy v.Nagy (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1262 oe cccecsesesscsseessesscesseesessessesscsscsessseseseseesseesseaseeeesess
10
Norgart vy.Upjohn Co, (1999) 21 Cal Athi383, 397 scrcccsensisscenncsxsesonesmesavancnnarnamemennecousaneenconee
2
Osborne v. Subaru of America, Inc. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 646, 660, 1.8.0...
cccseeeeeeeseeeeeeeees 14
Ponderosa Homes, Inc. v.City of San Ramon (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1761, 1768 ......cceeeeeeseeeees
3
S&S
Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988...
ccseseseesseeeeeeeeeeees 16
—-
Sofranek v. County ofMerced (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1250 .......cccccceseeseeeeseeseeeeseeseeeeneenes
8
[|=
NY
Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 74 ..cccccssccsscesscessessseesseessscssessessssesseesssessseseeseseaes
10
HH
FEF
Tarmann y. State Farm
(1991) 2 Cal. App.4th 153 occ ccceescsecsesscsscssesesscsesseescsscsscsscseesscseeseeasessessessecseeesseeseneseees
10
>
F&F
Tarmann ¥. State Farin (1991) 2 Cal App Ati. 133, 157 scnccnsnssocvsnsmescersessscecserrenenanseenennennnnenereeenes
13
BDA
United Guar. Mortg. Indem. Co. v.Countrywide Fin. Corp. (C.D. Cal. 2009) 660
KF
FSipp2d 1163, 1185 scsssssensssvssssceoanansaencassansenesvoxsncocemavcevsasnsanrvaxsecencnenuamnsanenotenesvonsrneents
17
HA
FX
Warner Construction Corp. v. City ofLos Angeles (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 285, 294 .....ccccseseeseseseeseenees
11
FE
F
Wilens v. T.D. Waterhouse Grp., Inc. (2003) 120 Cal.App.4th 746, 754 ....cccscsseseseereeeeteeenerees
14
BO
F
Wilhelm v. Pray, Price, Williams & Russell (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1324 0... 9
ccesseeeeeteteteteeseeeees
COCO
HN
Statutes
FAX
§F&
NK
Cal. Civ. Code § 1783 3
.........sccssssssssessscccssssssssssssssssscsscesssscssesssensesscsasessssnssscsenssaseaseaaessensooessnssassasessnees
NY
NKR
Code Civ. Proc., § 339 3
...ccscscssessssesceseccsseccseesssseseessssescssssssscsecseeseessesseseneesesansaeensessessessscsssesesensseensees
BY
KY
|
NKR
&
Other Authorities
NO
un
CACTI 1901 10
..cceesceccccssssssssssssscscceccssssscecsecsecsesscesesessceesssesssssscssssssescsessessssessasensenssesssesseessasensansanenses
Aa
nrve
14 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1974) Torts, 9
.........:cssseesscesssecssestssessseesseeeeseeeseeseeseees
NI
ry
LEWIS
oo
N
BRISBOIS 1894662.3 ili
BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO
&SMIH LIP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
i INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND FACTS
RO
Plaintiffs David F. Tibbett and Deanna Tibbett (collectively “Plaintiffs”) claim that the
OR
vehicle they purchased almost fourteen years ago on August 6, 2005, was defective and did not
he
conform to warranties. They nevertheless did not filetheir original Complaint until November 19,
TN
2018, alleging that Defendants Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) and Future Ford, Inc. (“Future
DRO
Ford,” and collectively with Ford, “Defendants’’) fraudulently induced them to purchase the truck.
YQ
On February 19, 2020, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the
Fe
Pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ entire First Amended Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ claims
S&S
were time barred. Specifically, Plaintiffs “[did] not allege specific facts showing reasonable
COWOMNMOCOCONOt
diligence or a reasonable investigation after experiencing these issues, nor [did] Plaintiffs
lfNelS
OOO
adequately allege the time and manner of discovery.” (Sullivan Decl., § 3, Ex. 1.) The Court also
OOS
stated that Plaintiffs could not avail themselves of fraudulent concealment because their “own
OE
lOe
allegations support the conclusion that they were on notice regarding Defendants’ failure to repair
FE
OeRehUhUwNlUUaeStlUCOCOlCUMNCOClCU
the vehicle.” (/d.) Finally, the Court held that Plaintiffs failed to allege facts to support equitable
FE
estoppel. (/d.) The Court granted Plaintiffs until March 6, 2020 to file their Second Amended
OE
Complaint (“SAC”). Plaintiffs filed their SAC (improperly entitled “First Amended Complaint”)
—KF*
on March 6, 2020.
KX
Plaintiffs’ SAC alleges the same six causes of action as did their FAC: (1) Fraud in the
RF
Inducement — Intentional Misrepresentation, (2) Negligent Misrepresentation, (3) Fraud in the
FAX
Inducement — Concealment, (4) Fraud In Performance of Contract — Intentional Misrepresentation,
KR
(5) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act, and (6) Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
NKR
BY
(“CLRA”).
NR
The new facts Plaintiffs added to their SAC establish, even more clearly than the FAC, that
kt
KYO
Plaintiffs are not entitled to any tolling that could render their claims timely. Further Plaintiffs’
UN
NK
reliance on discovery tolling is inadequate because Plaintiffs stillclaim that they got rid of the
OO
NKR
vehicle in 2012 because it was exhibiting catastrophic engine failure — yet were somehow not put
NTN
RKO
LEWIS
Co
yn
BRISBOIS 1894662.3 1
BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO
& SMITH
LP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
on notice until the summer of 2016 when they had a vague conversation with their son-in-law.
Moreover, Plaintiffs stillfail to plead allegations that would
DR
allow them to avail themselves of
fraudulent concealment or equitable estoppel—and, similarly, failto plead
—R
the required elements
of their fraud-based claims with the required
Rh
specificity. The Court should therefore grant
Defendants’ Demurrer without leave to amend, because the deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ SAC cannot
DD
be cured by further amendment.
Il. LEGAL STANDARD TO SUSTAIN A DEMURRER
YQ
Having
F&F
already granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to
S&S
amend in this case, the Court is well familiar with this case and the rule that a demurrer challenges
defects that appear on the face of the complaint, or matters outside the pleadings that are judicially
ek
CC
noticeable.
mk
Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Trial courts treat the demurrer as
—
admitting material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of factor
NO
mpm
law. Kamen vy.Lindley (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 197, 201.) If there is no “reasonable possibility”
WO
that a plaintiff can cure a defective claim by amendment, the court should sustain the demurrer
F.
pm
without leave to amend. Heckendorn v.City of San Marino (1986) 42 Cal.3d 481, 486.)
UA
mm
DB
ll. ARGUMENT
mm
A. Plaintiffs’ Causes of Action Remain Barred by the Statute of Limitations.
NIH
mmm
OB
1. Plaintiffs’ Causes of Action are Facially Untimely.
CO
Statutes of limitations are designed to prevent the prosecution of stale claims and to
FT
stimulate plaintiffs to diligently assert fresh claims against defendants so that they can be resolved
RO
FAX
RD
on their merits. Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 397.) When “a complaint shows
=
DB
NY
on its face or on the basis of judicially noticeable facts that the cause of action is barred by the
BY
applicable statute of limitations, the plaintiff must plead facts which show an excuse, tolling, or
OH
BD
ek,
NR
some other basis for avoiding the statutory bar.” (Ponderosa Homes, Inc. vy.City of San Ramon
Ana
(1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1761, 1768 (Ponderosa).) Failure to plead facts that create at least a triable
NBR
Dn
issue of fact on such grounds warrants dismissal of the action. (Lantzy v. Centex Homes (2003) 31
NI
NY
Cal.4th 363, 366-367 [concluding trial court properly dismissed claims on demurrer where
LEWIS
Co
Ny
BRISBOIS 1894662.3 Z
BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO
& SMIHLIP PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
plaintiffs failed to plead facts that would equitably estop defendants from asserting statute of
limitations defense].)
RO
It remains undisputed that Plaintiffs’ claims are facially untimely. Plaintiffs purchased
OD
their 2006 F-250 (“subject vehicle) on August 6, 2005. (SAC, § 9.) The statute of limitations for
eye
Plaintiffs’ Sixth Cause of Action for CLRA and First, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action for
WmD
DBD
common law fraud claims is three years, and the statute of limitations for the Second Cause of
Action for negligent misrepresentation is two years. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1783; Fox v.Ethicon Endo-
NHN
Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 808; E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Services (2007) 153
fF
Cal.App.4th 1308, 1316 (citing Code Civ. Proc. § 339). The three year limitations period for fraud
SCS
begins to run when the plaintiff is defrauded; this date can be extended to the date that plaintiff
SO
either discovers facts constituting fraud, or with reasonable diligence could have discovered those
>
=
facts, whichever comes first. (Fox, 35 Cal.4" at 808.) The statute of limitations for Plaintiffs’ Fifth
Fe
Ye
Cause of Action, for breach of warranty claim under the Song-Beverly Act, is four years. Krieger
OO
FEF
v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 205, 213-215.)
KF
>
As this Court recognized in its order granting Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the
FX
Deh
Pleadings, Plaintiffs’ FAC failed to plead sufficient facts to support delayed discovery or other
FEF
explain, Plaintiffs’ SAC did not cure the
NHN
tolling of the statute of limitations. As we now
FX
deficiencies, and their claims remain time-barred as amatter of law.
Fe
Ff
2. Plaintiffs’ “Delayed Discovery” and “Fraudulent Concealment”
BO
Ff
Allegations Are Legally Insufficient Because Plaintiffs Have Again
Failed in their SAC to Plead — And Cannot Plead - Specific Facts
CO
KR
Showing an Inability to Make Earlier Discovery Despite Reasonable
FAX
Diligence.
SF&F
NK
Plaintiffs’ SAC again alleges “delayed discovery” and “fraudulent concealment” to excuse
Re
KR
with the statute of limitations. These discovery rules postpone the date on
BY
their noncompliance
He
NKR
which a statute of limitations begins running untilthe plaintiff discovers, or is on inquiry notice of,
ek.
KRY
facts supporting the cause of action. (Fox, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 807; Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.
uu
KR
(1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1110-1111 [limitations period begins to run when plaintiff “suspects or
Oo
NO
should suspect’ that his injury “was caused by wrongdoing” or that “someone has done something
NY
RHO
LEWIS
co
ry
BRISBOIS 1894662.3 3
BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’? MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO
& SMITHLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
wrong to him”’] (emphasis added).) “[P]laintiffs are required to conduct a reasonable investigation
=
after becoming aware of an injury, and are charged with knowledge of the information that would
YY
have been revealed by such an investigation.” (Fox, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 807-808.)
WO
Critically, “[i]gnorance of the legal significance of known facts or the identity of the
eye
wrongdoer will not delay the running of the statute.” (Jolly, supra, 44 Cal.3d at 1112, fn. 8
nen
(emphasis added).) Moreover, once a plaintiff knows or has inquiry notice of at least some facts
NBD
that might support a cause of action, tolling under the discovery rule ceases, even in the face of a
defendant’s alleged concealment of other relevant facts. Barker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
FF
SCS
Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.4th 42, 49-51.) The discovery rule uses an objective test rather than looking
to the date when a plaintiff subjectively understood that a factual basis for a claim might exist.
kOOelOlNOllUeSCUO Ut
Geertz v. Ausonio (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1367-1368 (Geertz).)
COlUCUCOCOlCUCUCOWUNClNDNO
=S|>OO—_
Plaintiffs bear a heightened burden to claim delayed discovery and fraudulent concealment
FO
tolling: “In order to rely on the discovery rule for delayed accrual of a cause of action, ‘[a]
plaintiff whose complaint shows on its face that his claim would be barred without the benefit of
FX
Ol
the discovery rule must specifically plead facts to show (1) the time and manner of discovery and
FX
(2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.’ [Citation.] In
YF
assessing the sufficiency of the allegations of delayed discovery, the court places the burden on the
FF
plaintiff to ‘show diligence’; ‘conclusory allegations will not withstand demurrer.’” (Fox, supra,
999
35 Cal.4th at 808, 815; WA Southwest 2, LLC v. First American Title Insurance Co. (2015) 240
F
Cal.App.4th 148, 156; see Mills v. Forestex Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 625, 641 (Mills) [plaintiff
KR
FAX
tlc
bears heightened pleading burden when relying on doctrine of fraudulent concealment].)
KR
NYO
Plaintiffs’ SAC allegations of when and how they finally became aware of their fraud
NKR
deficient under Fox. Plaintiffs again tell a story that it“was not until
BY
causes of action are legally
Re
KR
summer of 2016, when Plaintiff David F. Tibbett spoke to his son-in-law who is also a truck
kek
KR
owner, that Plaintiffs firstdiscovered, or reasonably could have discovered, that FORD’s previous
UN
KO
repairs to the engine during the express warranty period had failed to conform to Plaintiffs’
AO
RKO
Vehicle to the express warranty.” (SAC, §§ 74-75 (emphasis added)). This bare-bones allegation
TNT
roe
LEWIS
Co
rn
BRISBOIS 1894662.3 4
BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’? MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO
& SMITH
LIP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
fails to satisfy the heightened pleading burden established by the California Supreme Court, for
several reasons.
NY
First, this allegation does not come close to fulfilling Plaintiffs’ obligation of specifically
WW
pleading facts showing “the time and manner of discovery.” (Fox, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 808.)
&
Again, Plaintiffs provide no details about the conversation—not even to allege that the discussion
Oo
was about their truck—and make no attempt to explain how this conversation put Plaintiffs on
N
notice of claims arising from a truck they sold four years earlier. (SAC § 74, compare FAC § 74.)
As the court ruled in granting judgment on the pleadings, “[v]ague reference to a conversation
with a third party who isalso a truck owner does not fulfill thle] requirement” to show reasonable
10 diligence or investigation or to adequately allege the time and manner of discovery. (Sullivan
11 Decl., § 3, Ex. 1.) Plaintiffs’ continued failure to plead the specific “time and manner” of their
12 discovery renders their pleadings insufficient under Fox. (Fox, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 808.)
13 The additional facts Plaintiffs plead about specific repairs do not make up for their failure
14 to plead the supposed manner of discovery during the 2016 conversation. To the contrary, they
15 make Plaintiffs’ failure to plead specific facts about their manner of d
Preview
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP H. PAUL EFSTRATIS, SB# 242373 E-Mail: Paul.Efstratis@lewisbrisbois.com TAYLOR F. SULLIVAN, SB# 297014 WN E-Mail: Taylor.Sullivan@lewisbrisbois.com FILED Superior MATTHEW K. McCULLOUGH, SB# Court of Califo WH 309351 County of Piacer rate E-Mail: Matthew.McCullough@lewisbrisbois.com APR 10 2020 we 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, California 94104-2872 Oo Telephone: 415.362.2580 Jake Chatters xXcutive Officer & Clerk Facsimile: 415.434.0882 af ie Lucatuorto, Deputy NH Attorneys for Defendants Ford Motor Company and Future Ford, Inc. NN CO SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Co COUNTY OF PLACER 10 11 DAVID F. TIBBETT and DEANNA CASE NO. SCV0042147 12 TIBBETT, DEFENDANTS FORD MOTOR 13 Plaintiffs, COMPANY AND FUTURE FORD, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 14 VS. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND bh) FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware AMENDED COMPLAINT Corporation; FUTURE FORD, INC., a 16 California Corporation; and DOES | through [Filed Concurrently with Notice of Demurrer 10, inclusive, & Demurrer; Declaration of Taylor F. 17 Sullivan; Request for Judicial Notice; and Defendants. [Proposed] Order] 18 Date: July 24, 2020 19 Time: 8:30a.m. Dept.: 31 20 FAX Action Filed: November 19, 2018 21 FAC Filed: December 24, 2018 SAC Filed: March 6, 2020 22 Trial Date: None Set BY 23 24 25 26 27 LEWIS 28 BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Toc Table of Contents WN INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND FACTS ....0....c.cccccccsssssssssesesesesesessssssessscscseseens 1 WH &— Ii, LEGAL STANDARD TO SUSTAIN A DEMURRER ...........cccececccscscseeseseseeeeseseseseseseees 2 nan Ii. BGT Tc ccscourexannnsneanenercnvssonensmansascenseiwarese wesweieecshhhSaahShibsSctseiedonsnrenenananenstveroreensunere 2 NH A. Plaintiffs’ Causes of Action Remain Barred by the Statute of Limitations. ............. 2 i, Plaintiffs’ Causes of Action are Facially Untimely. ...............0.....00:000 2 2. Plaintiffs’ “Delayed Discovery” and “Fraudulent Concealment” Allegations Are Legally Insufficient Because Plaintiffs Have Again Failed in their SAC to Plead — And Cannot Plead - Specific Facts Showing an Inability to Make Earlier Discovery 10 Despite Reasonable Diligence. ............ecececccccceseeseeeseeseeseeseeeeeeseeseeseeseenee 3 11 3. Equitable Estoppel Does Not Apply, and Plaintiffs Apparently PUTOG cx csesesenassssascncemasamnesmennenenenommeemc arm esuucammee aosNaNRTMOaeTnoRNEES 7 12 B. Plaintiffs’ Fraud-Based Claims Fail For Several Independent Reason............. 8 13 1. Fraud must be pleaded with particularity. 0.0.0.0... ccccceeeseeeeseeeeeteeees 8 14 a Plaintiffs’ Concealment and Misrepresentation Allegations are 15 TNstTICIOND AS & MALES Of LAW si icnccmnmomammnananmmmammmmsn 9 16 Plaintiffs’ CLRA Claim Fails as a Matter of Law.......... cece ceeeeeeeseeeteeeeee 12 17 Plaintiffs’ Claims are Barred by the Economic Loss Rule. ..........0..... eee 13 18 Permitting Plaintiff Leave to Amend Again Would Waste Judicial ROSOUPLCES. 0... eee eecceeeceescesseessceeseenseceseceseecscesscceseceuecessecessececsssesseceseecessesensaeeaeenaes 14 19 IV. CON CLUSION vrsnscccnssuesxenns exewsenenunsscenepannncncsursussuaeaneonemesnnngsncorncemeyensrecmmenmenemmnumcones 15 20 FAX 21 22 BY 23 24 25 26 27 LEWIS 28 BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LP ATTORNEYS AT LAW TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. Department of Industrial WD Relanons (1995)4) Cal App Ath 298, 302 sessscmnsrcccccrenssamananaesoiaasnsmnameenermmnnsancenvesns 17 ND ye Barker v.Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.4th 42, 49-51 cee eeeeseeseeeeeees 4 mn Biahk v: Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal 3d 311, 318. .....n-2ncnostincnesisachinneshshnnsanssesaiss sasasasasdaxa dace coeasaesnoxaunnwens a Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 248 wo...cceccesceseeseeeseeseeeeeeeeeeees 9 Buckland v. Threshold Enterprises (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 798, 811 oo... ceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 14 fe Dalton v.East Bay Municipal Utility Dist. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1566, 1570-71... cece 17 CS E-Fab, Inc. v.Accountants, Inc. Services (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1316 wee eeeeee esses 3 10 Engalla v.Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 971 cece eesceeeseeseesseeeeeeeees 9 11 Food Safe Net Services v. Eco Safe Systems USA, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1118, 16 12 13 Fox'v, Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Gal At 197, SOB ssssscasascssnsevesassesnannannnnannsananonxavaroreseess 3 14 Geertz v. Ausonio (1992)-4 Cal App Ath 1363, 1367-1368... sisscsconssasscssatsaaiensasasasarsmnmasneamnasnsnnnsnn 5 15 Gentry v.eBay, inc, (2002) 99 Cal.App.Ath 816, 835...........0-cssicsnisessstennscacianns ss snmnanrenienenesannnne 14 16 Heckendorn vy. City of San Marino (1986) 42 Cal.3d 481, 486........cccscseeseseeseeeeeeteeeeeeeteeeeneeees 2,17 17 Heliotis v.Schuman (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 646, 651... ceccesessscessseessesseeeseesseeeeeseeneeeneeseeenees 11 18 Herremans v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. CV 14-02363 MMM PJWYV, 2014 WL 5017843, Be PS:(Ge BBs Cie BigDO vcorecee errcremaeeenecreeeneeeenemmenenmeneesenscerrereremamenanenauwomnnennnsnls 6 19 Herron v. Best Buy Co. Inc. (E.D.Cal. 2013) 924 F.Supp.2d 1161, 1176 .........cssescersserersecseeees 13 20 Hoffman v. 162 North Wolfe LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1187-1189 .....eeeeeeeseseseeees 11 FAX 21 John B. v.Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1188 12 .......ccscseseeeseseeeeeeeeseneesseseesstesseeeeeeees 22 Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, LLLO-11 11 eee 4 eeeteseteeteteteeeeseseeeteeeessseeeseenenes BY 23 Jones v. Conoco Phillips Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1198.) 10 .....cceeessesseseeseeesessteesessneees 24 Kamen v.Lindley (2001) 94 Cal. App.4th 197, 201 2 ......:cccsesesseeseeseeseeseeeeseessensessesesesesesesessesseneenes 25 Kearns v. Ford Motor Co. (9th Cir. 2009) 567 F.3d 1120.) 14 ....ccccscseseseereereeseeseessesseeseeeeesseneenenees 26 Krieger v.Nick Alexander Imports, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 205, 213-215 3 ....ssssesesseseeeeneeeeeee 27 Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645 9 ...cccccceseseseseseesessessseeseseneesenensenenesnenecnenecseseeees LEWIS 28 BRISBOIS 1894662.3 ii BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO & SMI LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Linear Technology Corp. v.Applied Materials, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 115, 132 .............12 Mason’. Drug inc. (1939) 31 Cal App. 697, 103 scscncscssscasn0.caonmacrasmancenmnamnmananmaneveienne 10 ~ Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1292.0... eceeseeseeeeees15 a no. Meyer 'v.Sprint Spectrum LP. (2009) 45 Cal Athi634, 64.1.ccccsssisissosscscocsccsraascsnvencvonsesonnssnecamouacaes 15 Mills v.Forestex Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 625, 641 oo... cececcsesscsseeseeesssseesscsssessessessessesessesaeees 5 i | Moore v. Apple, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2014) 73 F.Supp.3d 1191, 1201... eee eeeeeeseeeeseeseeeeeeeeseseeeeees 15 nS Nagy v.Nagy (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1262 oe cccecsesesscsseessesscesseesessessesscsscsessseseseseesseesseaseeeesess 10 Norgart vy.Upjohn Co, (1999) 21 Cal Athi383, 397 scrcccsensisscenncsxsesonesmesavancnnarnamemennecousaneenconee 2 Osborne v. Subaru of America, Inc. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 646, 660, 1.8.0... cccseeeeeeeseeeeeeeees 14 Ponderosa Homes, Inc. v.City of San Ramon (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1761, 1768 ......cceeeeeeseeeees 3 S&S Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988... ccseseseesseeeeeeeeeeees 16 —- Sofranek v. County ofMerced (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1250 .......cccccceseeseeeeseeseeeeseeseeeeneenes 8 [|= NY Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 74 ..cccccssccsscesscessessseesseessscssessessssesseesssessseseeseseaes 10 HH FEF Tarmann y. State Farm (1991) 2 Cal. App.4th 153 occ ccceescsecsesscsscssesesscsesseescsscsscsscseesscseeseeasessessessecseeesseeseneseees 10 > F&F Tarmann ¥. State Farin (1991) 2 Cal App Ati. 133, 157 scnccnsnssocvsnsmescersessscecserrenenanseenennennnnenereeenes 13 BDA United Guar. Mortg. Indem. Co. v.Countrywide Fin. Corp. (C.D. Cal. 2009) 660 KF FSipp2d 1163, 1185 scsssssensssvssssceoanansaencassansenesvoxsncocemavcevsasnsanrvaxsecencnenuamnsanenotenesvonsrneents 17 HA FX Warner Construction Corp. v. City ofLos Angeles (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 285, 294 .....ccccseseeseseseeseenees 11 FE F Wilens v. T.D. Waterhouse Grp., Inc. (2003) 120 Cal.App.4th 746, 754 ....cccscsseseseereeeeteeenerees 14 BO F Wilhelm v. Pray, Price, Williams & Russell (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1324 0... 9 ccesseeeeeteteteteeseeeees COCO HN Statutes FAX §F& NK Cal. Civ. Code § 1783 3 .........sccssssssssessscccssssssssssssssssscsscesssscssesssensesscsasessssnssscsenssaseaseaaessensooessnssassasessnees NY NKR Code Civ. Proc., § 339 3 ...ccscscssessssesceseccsseccseesssseseessssescssssssscsecseeseessesseseneesesansaeensessessessscsssesesensseensees BY KY | NKR & Other Authorities NO un CACTI 1901 10 ..cceesceccccssssssssssssscscceccssssscecsecsecsesscesesessceesssesssssscssssssescsessessssessasensenssesssesseessasensansanenses Aa nrve 14 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1974) Torts, 9 .........:cssseesscesssecssestssessseesseeeeseeeseeseeseees NI ry LEWIS oo N BRISBOIS 1894662.3 ili BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO &SMIH LIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES i INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND FACTS RO Plaintiffs David F. Tibbett and Deanna Tibbett (collectively “Plaintiffs”) claim that the OR vehicle they purchased almost fourteen years ago on August 6, 2005, was defective and did not he conform to warranties. They nevertheless did not filetheir original Complaint until November 19, TN 2018, alleging that Defendants Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) and Future Ford, Inc. (“Future DRO Ford,” and collectively with Ford, “Defendants’’) fraudulently induced them to purchase the truck. YQ On February 19, 2020, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Fe Pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ entire First Amended Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ claims S&S were time barred. Specifically, Plaintiffs “[did] not allege specific facts showing reasonable COWOMNMOCOCONOt diligence or a reasonable investigation after experiencing these issues, nor [did] Plaintiffs lfNelS OOO adequately allege the time and manner of discovery.” (Sullivan Decl., § 3, Ex. 1.) The Court also OOS stated that Plaintiffs could not avail themselves of fraudulent concealment because their “own OE lOe allegations support the conclusion that they were on notice regarding Defendants’ failure to repair FE OeRehUhUwNlUUaeStlUCOCOlCUMNCOClCU the vehicle.” (/d.) Finally, the Court held that Plaintiffs failed to allege facts to support equitable FE estoppel. (/d.) The Court granted Plaintiffs until March 6, 2020 to file their Second Amended OE Complaint (“SAC”). Plaintiffs filed their SAC (improperly entitled “First Amended Complaint”) —KF* on March 6, 2020. KX Plaintiffs’ SAC alleges the same six causes of action as did their FAC: (1) Fraud in the RF Inducement — Intentional Misrepresentation, (2) Negligent Misrepresentation, (3) Fraud in the FAX Inducement — Concealment, (4) Fraud In Performance of Contract — Intentional Misrepresentation, KR (5) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act, and (6) Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act NKR BY (“CLRA”). NR The new facts Plaintiffs added to their SAC establish, even more clearly than the FAC, that kt KYO Plaintiffs are not entitled to any tolling that could render their claims timely. Further Plaintiffs’ UN NK reliance on discovery tolling is inadequate because Plaintiffs stillclaim that they got rid of the OO NKR vehicle in 2012 because it was exhibiting catastrophic engine failure — yet were somehow not put NTN RKO LEWIS Co yn BRISBOIS 1894662.3 1 BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO & SMITH LP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on notice until the summer of 2016 when they had a vague conversation with their son-in-law. Moreover, Plaintiffs stillfail to plead allegations that would DR allow them to avail themselves of fraudulent concealment or equitable estoppel—and, similarly, failto plead —R the required elements of their fraud-based claims with the required Rh specificity. The Court should therefore grant Defendants’ Demurrer without leave to amend, because the deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ SAC cannot DD be cured by further amendment. Il. LEGAL STANDARD TO SUSTAIN A DEMURRER YQ Having F&F already granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to S&S amend in this case, the Court is well familiar with this case and the rule that a demurrer challenges defects that appear on the face of the complaint, or matters outside the pleadings that are judicially ek CC noticeable. mk Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Trial courts treat the demurrer as — admitting material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of factor NO mpm law. Kamen vy.Lindley (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 197, 201.) If there is no “reasonable possibility” WO that a plaintiff can cure a defective claim by amendment, the court should sustain the demurrer F. pm without leave to amend. Heckendorn v.City of San Marino (1986) 42 Cal.3d 481, 486.) UA mm DB ll. ARGUMENT mm A. Plaintiffs’ Causes of Action Remain Barred by the Statute of Limitations. NIH mmm OB 1. Plaintiffs’ Causes of Action are Facially Untimely. CO Statutes of limitations are designed to prevent the prosecution of stale claims and to FT stimulate plaintiffs to diligently assert fresh claims against defendants so that they can be resolved RO FAX RD on their merits. Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 397.) When “a complaint shows = DB NY on its face or on the basis of judicially noticeable facts that the cause of action is barred by the BY applicable statute of limitations, the plaintiff must plead facts which show an excuse, tolling, or OH BD ek, NR some other basis for avoiding the statutory bar.” (Ponderosa Homes, Inc. vy.City of San Ramon Ana (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1761, 1768 (Ponderosa).) Failure to plead facts that create at least a triable NBR Dn issue of fact on such grounds warrants dismissal of the action. (Lantzy v. Centex Homes (2003) 31 NI NY Cal.4th 363, 366-367 [concluding trial court properly dismissed claims on demurrer where LEWIS Co Ny BRISBOIS 1894662.3 Z BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO & SMIHLIP PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTORNEYS AT LAW plaintiffs failed to plead facts that would equitably estop defendants from asserting statute of limitations defense].) RO It remains undisputed that Plaintiffs’ claims are facially untimely. Plaintiffs purchased OD their 2006 F-250 (“subject vehicle) on August 6, 2005. (SAC, § 9.) The statute of limitations for eye Plaintiffs’ Sixth Cause of Action for CLRA and First, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action for WmD DBD common law fraud claims is three years, and the statute of limitations for the Second Cause of Action for negligent misrepresentation is two years. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1783; Fox v.Ethicon Endo- NHN Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 808; E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Services (2007) 153 fF Cal.App.4th 1308, 1316 (citing Code Civ. Proc. § 339). The three year limitations period for fraud SCS begins to run when the plaintiff is defrauded; this date can be extended to the date that plaintiff SO either discovers facts constituting fraud, or with reasonable diligence could have discovered those > = facts, whichever comes first. (Fox, 35 Cal.4" at 808.) The statute of limitations for Plaintiffs’ Fifth Fe Ye Cause of Action, for breach of warranty claim under the Song-Beverly Act, is four years. Krieger OO FEF v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 205, 213-215.) KF > As this Court recognized in its order granting Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the FX Deh Pleadings, Plaintiffs’ FAC failed to plead sufficient facts to support delayed discovery or other FEF explain, Plaintiffs’ SAC did not cure the NHN tolling of the statute of limitations. As we now FX deficiencies, and their claims remain time-barred as amatter of law. Fe Ff 2. Plaintiffs’ “Delayed Discovery” and “Fraudulent Concealment” BO Ff Allegations Are Legally Insufficient Because Plaintiffs Have Again Failed in their SAC to Plead — And Cannot Plead - Specific Facts CO KR Showing an Inability to Make Earlier Discovery Despite Reasonable FAX Diligence. SF&F NK Plaintiffs’ SAC again alleges “delayed discovery” and “fraudulent concealment” to excuse Re KR with the statute of limitations. These discovery rules postpone the date on BY their noncompliance He NKR which a statute of limitations begins running untilthe plaintiff discovers, or is on inquiry notice of, ek. KRY facts supporting the cause of action. (Fox, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 807; Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. uu KR (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1110-1111 [limitations period begins to run when plaintiff “suspects or Oo NO should suspect’ that his injury “was caused by wrongdoing” or that “someone has done something NY RHO LEWIS co ry BRISBOIS 1894662.3 3 BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’? MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO & SMITHLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT wrong to him”’] (emphasis added).) “[P]laintiffs are required to conduct a reasonable investigation = after becoming aware of an injury, and are charged with knowledge of the information that would YY have been revealed by such an investigation.” (Fox, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 807-808.) WO Critically, “[i]gnorance of the legal significance of known facts or the identity of the eye wrongdoer will not delay the running of the statute.” (Jolly, supra, 44 Cal.3d at 1112, fn. 8 nen (emphasis added).) Moreover, once a plaintiff knows or has inquiry notice of at least some facts NBD that might support a cause of action, tolling under the discovery rule ceases, even in the face of a defendant’s alleged concealment of other relevant facts. Barker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco FF SCS Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.4th 42, 49-51.) The discovery rule uses an objective test rather than looking to the date when a plaintiff subjectively understood that a factual basis for a claim might exist. kOOelOlNOllUeSCUO Ut Geertz v. Ausonio (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1367-1368 (Geertz).) COlUCUCOCOlCUCUCOWUNClNDNO =S|>OO—_ Plaintiffs bear a heightened burden to claim delayed discovery and fraudulent concealment FO tolling: “In order to rely on the discovery rule for delayed accrual of a cause of action, ‘[a] plaintiff whose complaint shows on its face that his claim would be barred without the benefit of FX Ol the discovery rule must specifically plead facts to show (1) the time and manner of discovery and FX (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.’ [Citation.] In YF assessing the sufficiency of the allegations of delayed discovery, the court places the burden on the FF plaintiff to ‘show diligence’; ‘conclusory allegations will not withstand demurrer.’” (Fox, supra, 999 35 Cal.4th at 808, 815; WA Southwest 2, LLC v. First American Title Insurance Co. (2015) 240 F Cal.App.4th 148, 156; see Mills v. Forestex Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 625, 641 (Mills) [plaintiff KR FAX tlc bears heightened pleading burden when relying on doctrine of fraudulent concealment].) KR NYO Plaintiffs’ SAC allegations of when and how they finally became aware of their fraud NKR deficient under Fox. Plaintiffs again tell a story that it“was not until BY causes of action are legally Re KR summer of 2016, when Plaintiff David F. Tibbett spoke to his son-in-law who is also a truck kek KR owner, that Plaintiffs firstdiscovered, or reasonably could have discovered, that FORD’s previous UN KO repairs to the engine during the express warranty period had failed to conform to Plaintiffs’ AO RKO Vehicle to the express warranty.” (SAC, §§ 74-75 (emphasis added)). This bare-bones allegation TNT roe LEWIS Co rn BRISBOIS 1894662.3 4 BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’? MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO & SMITH LIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT fails to satisfy the heightened pleading burden established by the California Supreme Court, for several reasons. NY First, this allegation does not come close to fulfilling Plaintiffs’ obligation of specifically WW pleading facts showing “the time and manner of discovery.” (Fox, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 808.) & Again, Plaintiffs provide no details about the conversation—not even to allege that the discussion Oo was about their truck—and make no attempt to explain how this conversation put Plaintiffs on N notice of claims arising from a truck they sold four years earlier. (SAC § 74, compare FAC § 74.) As the court ruled in granting judgment on the pleadings, “[v]ague reference to a conversation with a third party who isalso a truck owner does not fulfill thle] requirement” to show reasonable 10 diligence or investigation or to adequately allege the time and manner of discovery. (Sullivan 11 Decl., § 3, Ex. 1.) Plaintiffs’ continued failure to plead the specific “time and manner” of their 12 discovery renders their pleadings insufficient under Fox. (Fox, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 808.) 13 The additional facts Plaintiffs plead about specific repairs do not make up for their failure 14 to plead the supposed manner of discovery during the 2016 conversation. To the contrary, they 15 make Plaintiffs’ failure to plead specific facts about their manner of d