Duffy v. Hyundai Motor America

56. Duffy v. Defendant Hyundai Motor America’s demurrer to plaintiff Colin Hyundai F. Duffy’s First Amended Complaint [FAC] is OVERRULED. Motor (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) America The 5th cause of action for fraudulent inducement – 2025- concealment is sufficiently alleged. (Roddenberry v. 01481786 Roddenberry (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 634, 665-666 [concealment elements]; Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 17 Cal.5th 1, 40-41 [outside of duties imposed by statute or arising out of a confidential / fiduciary relationship, a duty to disclose may arise where “the material facts are known or accessible only to defendant, and defendant knows those facts are not known or reasonably discoverable by plaintiff,” or from a “preexisting relationship between the parties, such as ‘between seller and buyer ... or parties entering into any kind of contractual agreement;” internal citations omitted]; Complaint, ¶¶ 7 [warranty]; ¶¶ 48-52 [concealment of material facts regarding exclusively known defects and describing same]; 54 [duty to disclose]; 50-53, 55 [scienter]; ¶¶ 56, 57 [reasonable reliance]; ¶ 59 [proximately caused damages].)

Defendant’s motion to strike the punitive damages allegations in the FAC is DENIED. As the 5th cause of action is sufficiently pled, it supports punitive damages allegations. (Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 610.)

Moving defendant shall file an Answer to the FAC within 10 days.

The case management conference is continued to September 28, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28.

Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.

57. Williams v. Plaintiffs H. Newell Williams, Jr. and Kimberly Clark-Williams’ Sevilla motion for leave to augment and/or amend their expert Homeowners witness designation is GRANTED, on the conditions discussed Association below. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2034.610