Katharine Martin vs FCA US LLC et al

Case Number

25CV01795

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 11/21/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Demurrer

Tentative Ruling

Defendant FCA US LLC’s demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint filed on November 10, 2025, is deemed plaintiff’s amended pleading filed pursuant to that leave. FCA’s responsive pleading is due on or before December 8, 2025.

Background:

On March 24, 2025, plaintiff Katherine Martin filed this action against defendants FCA US, LLC (FCA) and Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram FIAT of Santa Barbara (CDJRFSB), alleging six causes of action for: violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d) (against FCA); violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b) (against FCA); violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3) (against FCA); breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (against FCA); negligent repair (against CDJRFSB); and fraudulent inducement – concealment (against FCA). (Complaint, ¶¶ 40-72.)

As alleged in the complaint: on or about June 22, 2020, plaintiff agreed to a warranty contract with defendant FCA pertaining to a 2017 Jeep Cherokee manufactured or distributed by FCA. (Complaint, ¶¶ 7-8, 11, Ex. A.) FCA knew prior to plaintiff’s purchase that 2017 Jeep Cherokee vehicles equipped with a 9-speed transmission are defective. (Complaint, ¶¶ 7, 16.) These defects can cause hesitation on acceleration, loss of power, hard and harsh shifts, and jerking. (Complaint, ¶ 65.) They can also result in a total loss of power and failure to accelerate while driving, significantly impairing driver control. (Complaint, ¶ 65.) FCA failed to disclose these defects to plaintiff at the time of sale or thereafter. (Complaint, ¶ 18.) Had plaintiff known that the subject vehicle was defective at the time of sale, she would not have purchased the vehicle. (Complaint, ¶ 69.) Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, restitution, punitive damages, civil penalties, attorney’s fees and other appropriate relief. (Complaint, p. 12.)

On July 30, 2025, defendant FCA filed a demurrer to plaintiff’s sixth cause of action for fraudulent inducement – concealment. (Demurrer, p. 3.) Defendant FCA argues that this cause of action fails to state a cause of action or is uncertain pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivisions (e) and (f). (Ibid.)

On November 10, 2025, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC) against defendant FCA and CDJRFSB, asserting the same six causes of action but with additional supporting allegations.

Analysis:

“A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a), italics added.) “Because there is but one complaint in a civil action [citation], the filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint.” (State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1131; see also People ex rel. Strathmann v. Acacia Research Corp. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 487, 506 [filing of a first amended complaint renders demurrer moot].)

The hearing for this demurrer is scheduled on November 21, 2025. Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 requires plaintiff to file and serve any opposition to the demurrer at least nine court days before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subds. (a)(13), (b).) Veteran’s Day, November 11, 2025, was a judicial holiday. (Code Civ. Proc., § 135; Gov. Code, § 6700, subd. (a)(16).) Courts are closed for business on judicial holidays with limited exceptions not relevant here. (Code Civ. Proc., § 134, subds. (a), (d).) Plaintiff’s opposition was due on Friday, November 7, 2025, nine court days prior to November 21, 2025.

Plaintiff filed the FAC on November 10, 2025, later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer. The court construes these events as a recognition by plaintiff that the demurrer has merit. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subds. (a)(3) & (a)(8); Cottle v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1377-1378 [discussing court’s inherent powers to fashion procedures to ensure the orderly and efficient conduct of the court’s business].) The court accordingly sustains defendant FCA’s demurrer with leave to amend and considers plaintiff’s FAC filed on November 10, 2025, as plaintiff’s amended pleading filed pursuant to that leave.