DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV-06555·merced·Civil·Automotive / Fraud
Hearing about 2 months agoDemurrer SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; Motion to Strike GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Carol Whitson vs General Motors, LLC

Demurrer; Motion to Strike

Hearing date
Jun 30, 2026
Department
8
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffCarol Whitson
DefendantGeneral Motors, LLC

Ruling

24CV-06555 Carol Whitson vs General Motors, LLC

Demurrer

Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND on the basis of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Here, Plaintiff does not allege enough facts to support a fraudulent inducement concealment cause of action. For example and not exhaustive, the complaint (1) fails to allege sufficient facts identifying the specific marketing statements that were misleading and that were relied upon by Plaintiff, (2) fails to allege sufficient facts regarding the dealership personnel, conversations, or content of omissions at the point of sale, and (3) fails to allege sufficient facts tying Thompson Chevrolet Buick’s specific acts to GM beyond conveying information from GM to prospective purchasers.

Plaintiff is to file an amended complaint within ten (10) days of this court’s order.

Motion to Strike

In light of the court’s ruling on Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action, Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim (FAC, PRAYER ¶ g, at 12:26) is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Plaintiff is to file an amended complaint within ten (10) days of this court’s order.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share