Haynes vs. Hyundai Motor America

Defendant Hyundai Motor America’s (defendant) demurrer to complaint is OVERRULED.

Defendant shall answer the complaint within 10 days.

The complaint states facts sufficient to constitute the fifth cause of action for fraudulent concealment–inducement, with the requisite specificity. (See Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 17 Cal.5th 1, 40-41, 43-44 [elements, specificity; duty to disclose, generally]; Gilead Tenofovir Cases (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 911, 949 [“a vehicle manufacturer owes a duty to purchasers of its vehicles to disclose known defects”]; Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828, 844; see also Compl. ¶¶ 4, 6-7, 10, 47-59.)

The economic loss rule does not bar a claim for fraudulent concealment. (Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 38.)

The court declines to consider and has not considered plaintiff Barney Whitford Haynes’s (plaintiff) opposition to the demurrer. The opposition is untimely, and there is no proof of service of the opposition. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Defense counsel’s reply declaration confirms plaintiff has not served the opposition to date. (See Knighton Reply Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.)

Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint

Defendant’s motion to strike portions of complaint is DENIED. The prayer for punitive damages is adequately supported by the fifth cause of action for fraudulent concealment–inducement. (Stevens v. Superior Court (St. Francis Med. Ctr.) (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 610 [a properly pled fraud claim will itself support recovery of punitive damages].)

The court declines to consider and has not considered plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to strike for the same reasons discussed above with respect to his opposition to the demurrer.