Siamack Soufer et al. v. FCA US, LLC

proposition that a vehicle manufacturer can have a transactional relationship with its vehicle purchasers sufficient to give rise to the¿duty¿to¿disclose. Moreover, the¿facts are sufficient to show that Ford was involved in the marketing and sale of the Subject Vehicle sufficient to support the existence of a transactional relationship between Ford and Plaintiff. Moreover, the above allegations relate to Ford's pre-sale conduct that preceded the warranty contract.¿¿¿ Conclusion For the reasons explained above, defendant Ford Motor Company's Demurrer to the Sixth Cause of Action in Plaintiff Roben Olmedo's First Amended Complaint is overruled.

Defendant Ford Motor Company is to file an Answer within ten days of this Ruling. The Court continues the Case Management Conference to ____________, 2026, at 8:30AM, and sets an Order to show Cause Re: Answer as to Ford and as to Sunland for the same date and time. Date: _______________________________ William E. Weinberger Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

The engine is part of the powertrain as described in the warranty attached to the FAC as Exh. A. (Exh. A at pp. 11, 21.)

The battery control module and battery is stated to be a part of the electrical drivetrain system as explained in Exhibit A. (See Exh. A pp. 11-12.) The manual also states that the car is either a hybrid or electric vehicle. (See Exh. A at p. 1.) The Court is not privy to the interplay between the engine and the battery in hybrid or electric vehicles. As Plaintiff has suggested these repair allegations to be specific to the engine defect alleged, the Court treats them as such.

Dhital, at one point,¿was in question¿by Supreme Court¿and review was granted. The review was¿subsequently¿dismissed on December 18, 2024, effectively affirming the holding of¿ Dhital ¿for present purposes.¿

Hearing Date: August 28, 2026 Siamack Soufer et al. v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. 24STCV25373 Proceeding: Defendant's Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Sixth Cause of Action Ruling: Defendant's Motion for Summary Adjudication is granted. The Court finds that there is no triable issue as to any material fact in regard to the Sixth Cause of Action, and Defendant is entitled to a ruling on this claim as a matter of law. The evidence that Defendant presented, including Plaintiff's responses to discovery propounded by Defendant

showed that Plaintiffs lacked evidence to support this claim. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the Sixth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Inducement - Concealment on June 26, 2026. On August 21, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Adjudication. Defendant's Motion relied on Plaintiffs' verified responses to discovery requests propounded by Defendant and Plaintiffs'' deposition testimony under oath. The evidence supported Defendant's arguments that Plaintiffs lacked evidence to show that FCA had knowledge of a defect at the time of sale, or that Plaintiffs had a transactional relationship with Defendant triggering a duty to disclose a known defect at the time of sale, and also supported Defendant's argument that the cause of action is barred by the Economic Loss Rule. | Home -->)" -->