| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
demurrer; motion to strike
disobeying direct court orders. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2023.010 and 2023.030.)
Although discovery sanctions are typically meted out sparingly or in an incremental approach (Dep't of Forestry & Fire Prot. v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal. App. 5th 154, 191-92), the court has considered the totality of the circumstances in this instance and finds the actions of Defendant and her counsel are willful, to the detriment of Plaintiff, and that multiple informal attempts to resolve the issues were not successful. (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 377, 390.) In addition to the above, as prior monetary sanctions and the responses to requests for admission being deemed as admitted did not dissuade Defendant from additional discovery abuses, the court finds the request for terminating sanctions to be appropriate here.
Plaintiff’s request the court strike Defendant’s answer is granted. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against both Defendant and her counsel of record is also granted in the reduced amount of $1,400 ($400/hr. x 3.5 hrs.) as no opposition or reply briefs were filed. Monetary sanctions are due within 15 days of written notice of the ruling.
The court orders that Defendant’s answer is hereby struck.
Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to give notice of the ruling, and to prepare a request for entry of default which the court will sign upon receipt. 9 Baldwin v. O/C American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 10 Sandler v. Before the Court is the demurrer (ROA 53) and motion to strike General (ROA 54) filed by defendant General Motors LLC (Defendant) Motors, LLC directed to the first amended complaint (FAC) of plaintiffs Shelly Sandler and Dani Sandler (collectively, Plaintiffs). For the reasons set forth below, the demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. The motion to strike is GRANTED without leave to amend.
Defendant shall file an answer to the FAC within 20 days.
Demurrer
Defendant demurs to the fifth cause of action for Fraudulent Inducement-Concealment in the FAC. Although Plaintiffs initially filed a substantive opposition to the demurrer to the FAC, on May 4, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition to the demurrer, in which Plaintiffs state they do not oppose the demurrer to the fifth cause of action in the FAC for fraudulent inducement by concealment. (See ROA 106.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Given Plaintiffs do not oppose the demurrer to the fraudulent inducement by concealment cause of action in the FAC, the demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.
Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs have not alleged a viable fraud cause of action as the demurrer to said cause of action is sustained without leave to amend. Punitive damages are thus not available based on the fraud claim. Plaintiffs’ remaining allegations against Defendant relate to statutory violations under the Song Beverly Act, which provides for civil penalties but not punitive damages. (See Covert v. FCA USA, LLC (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 821, 828, fn. 3; Troensegaard v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 218, 228.) The motion is thus GRANTED without leave to amend.
The Court notes on April 15, 2026, Defendant filed a duplicate demurrer and motion to strike directed to the FAC, which are set for hearing on July 27, 2026. (ROA 100, 101.)
Given the Court’s rulings on the instant motions, the hearings set for July 27, 2026 are VACATED.
Counsel for Defendant shall give notice. 11 Benoliel v. Before the Court at present are the Demurrer and Motion to Strike FAC US, LLC filed on 2/19/26 by Defendants FCA US, LLC (“FCA”) and Tuttle Click Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram (“Dealer”) (together “Defendants”), as to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiff Menasse M. Benoliel (“Plaintiff”) on 1/20/26.
The Demurrer is SUSTAINED on the First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action (each a “COA”) as they appear time-barred on their face under Comm. Code §2725, and the allegations of delayed discovery remain insufficient here. Where a pleading shows on its face that a claim would otherwise be time-barred, the burden is on the plaintiff to state specific facts to show delayed discovery: conclusory allegations will not withstand demurrer. (Carrillo v. County of Santa Clara (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 227, 234.) The FAC does not meet that here.
Plaintiff asserts that after the 2014 purchase, Plaintiff sought service on five occasions, with different complaints, between 2016 and 2021. (FAC ¶¶ 14-19.) But none of those service complaints, as alleged, appear to be based on the alleged “death wobble” or “steering defect” otherwise described in the FAC. The FAC still fails to articulate, for any specific defect alleged, what the specific defect is, and when and how that was discovered by Plaintiff.
For COA 5, the Demurrer is again OVERRULED, for the same reasons previously stated in the 1/5/26 ruling.
For COA 6, the Demurrer is again SUSTAINED, as the claim as pled still lacks adequate specificity. Plaintiff has still provided only a