Defendant Maserati North America, Inc.’s demurrer to first amended complaint is SUSTAINED in its entirety with 10 days leave to amend. First, second, third, and fourth causes of action for products liability – a products liability claim in a strict liability or negligence case must be based on physical harm to person or property other than the product itself. Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege an injury to his person or property other than the product (brake hose) itself. As such, the economic loss rule also applies. (See County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318; Jimenez v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 473, 483.) Seventh cause of action for violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) – a CLRA claim based on a fraudulent omission must adequately allege the underlying fraud, including but not limited to, a duty to disclose and scienter. (See Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 824, 835; Falk v. General
Hearing Date
December 01, 2016
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Defendant Maserati North America, Inc.’s demurrer to first amended complaint is SUSTAINED in its entirety with 10 days leave to amend. First, second, third, and fourth causes of action for products liability – a products liability claim in a strict liability or negligence case must be based on physical harm to person or property other than the product itself. Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege an injury to his person or property other than the product (brake hose) itself. As such, the economic loss rule also applies. (See County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318; Jimenez v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 473, 483.) Seventh cause of action for violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) – a CLRA claim based on a fraudulent omission must adequately allege the underlying fraud, including but not limited to, a duty to disclose and scienter. (See Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 824, 835; Falk v. General