Mendoza

facts, governing legal standards, and arguments made by the parties. Misrepresentation. The motion is denied as to the misrepresentation claims because the complaint alleges both actionable misrepresentations and reliance on at least one of those misrepresentations. The “Autopilot” name is plausibly misleading, especially in light of the complaint’s allegations that Tesla employees expressed concern that it was and that German regulators requested it be changed to something less so. E.g., Chapman v. Skype Inc., 220 Cal. App. 4th 217, 231 (2013). The name is not the kind of “implied assertion” that can’t support a misrepresentation claim because it is alleged to be affirmatively misleading, not a statement that is misleading by omission. See Byrum v. Brand, 219 Cal. App. 3d 926, 940–42 (1990). The complaint also alleges other actionable present-tense statements, such as the video and Musk’s statements that Autopilot was “probably better” than a human driver and that autonomous driving was “basically a solved problem.” While these statements were made in 2016 and Mendoza’s Model S was a model year 2014, the statements are still plausibly misleading given the ability of the cars to…