JORGE ALBERTO ESPARZA v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, ET AL.

California Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 548 (Evans).) If the moving party is

the defendant, then a motion for judgment on the pleading is limited to the grounds that the court

has no jurisdiction over the subject of the cause of action or the complaint fails to state a cause of

action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B).) The grounds for a JOP shall appear on the face

of the pleading or from any matter judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (d).)

Essentially, a JOP performs the same function as a general demurrer, i.e., it attacks only

the defects disclosed on the face of the pleading or by matters that are judicially noticed. (Cloud

v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) As such, the JOP admits the truth

of all material facts alleged in the complaint. (Evans, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 549.)

2 The Court finds that the moving party has complied with its meet-and-confer obligation.

VII. EXPLANATION OF THE COURT’S RULING

For a claim of negligent repair, the traditional negligence elements apply, i.e., (1) legal

duty, (2) breach of the legal duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages. (Brown v. USA Taekwondo

(2021) 11 Cal.5th 204, 213.) A person who undertakes the repair of a product owes a duty to do

so without negligence, i.e., a duty to perform those services in a good and workmanlike manner.

(Civ. Code, § 1796.5.)

Defendant Jones Ontario challenges Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action on the grounds that

it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, in particular, that it is barred by the

economic loss rule. It argues that Plaintiff critically fails to properly allege damages, a critical

part of any negligence claim. (Thomas v. Stenberg (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 654, 662.)

Specifically, the argument continues, Plaintiff has failed to allege personal injury damage or

damage to property other than the product itself. In support of this contention, Defendant Jones

Ontario relies on the economic loss rule. (Jimenez v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 473, 483

(Jimenez).) As such, Defendant Jones Ontario asserts that the negligent repair claim fails.

Here, Plaintiff alleges that (1) he delivered the vehicle to Jones Ontario for repairs on

numerous occasions (Compl. ¶¶ 12-19, and 68); (2) Jones Ontario breached its duty to use skill

and care in storage, preparation, and repair of the Subject Vehicle as expected by industry

standards (Compl. ¶¶ 69-70); and (3) Jones Ontario’s breach was the proximate cause of

Plaintiff’s damages. (Compl. ¶ 71.)

The Court is not persuaded by the defense’s arguments. Further pleading of facts in

support of negligence and damages is not required as Jones Ontario argues, Jones Ontario has not

established that the economic loss rule bars Plaintiff’s negligent repair cause of action.

Negligence may be alleged generally. (Rannard v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. (1945) 26

Cal.2d 149, 154-55.) In California, “it is sufficient to allege the negligence in general terms,

specifying, however, the particular act alleged to have been negligently done.” (Id. at p. 155) As

a general rule, a negligence cause of action is not subject to a heightened pleading standard. (See

Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 508, 514 [“Under well-established

principles, . . . general allegations of negligence, proximate causation and resulting injury and

damages suffice to state a cause of action”.].)

As for Defendant Jones Ontario’s economic loss rule argument, the economic loss rule

provides that, “[i]n general, there is no recovery in tort for negligently inflicted ‘purely economic

losses,’ meaning financial harm unaccompanied by physical or property damage.” (Sheen v.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 905, 922 (Sheen).) “California decisional law has long

recognized that the economic loss rule does not necessarily bar recovery in tort for damage that a

defective product (e.g., a window) causes to other portions of a larger product (e.g., a house) into

which the former has been incorporated.” (Jimenez, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 483-84.) However,

there is a “recognized exception to the economic loss rule for consumers who contract for certain

kinds of professional services.” (Sheen, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 933.) As the Sheen court

explained:

“In that context, .... a cause of action for negligence ensures that the consumer receives the services the professional agreed to provide. In such settings, professionals generally agree to provide ‘careful efforts’ in rendering contracted for services, but ‘most clients do not know enough to protect themselves by inspecting the professional’s work or by other independent means. (Id. (citations omitted).) “Given this disparity, a claim for professional negligence can serve the important purpose of ensuring that professionals render the ‘careful efforts they have contracted to provide.” (Id. (citations omitted.)

In Sheen, 12 Cal.5th at 923, the California Supreme Court also held that the economic

loss rule “involves parties who are in contractual privity.”

Here, there is no allegation that Plaintiff had a contractual relationship with Jones

Ontario. As discussed above, Plaintiff generally alleges that Jones Ontario breached its duty by

failing to properly store, prepare, and repair the Subject Vehicle according to industry standards,

which caused damage. (Compl. ¶¶ 69-70.) It also is not clear from the face of the pleading that

negligent acts are associated with the defective product. The generic allegation leaves open the

door that some repair on the alleged defect damaged another part or the vehicle as a whole,

thereby falling outside the economic loss.

VIII. CONCLUSION

Defendant Jones Ontario’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is respectfully

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: [TENTATIVE – NOT FINAL] Hon. Joseph B. Widman Judge of the Superior Court