Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV44036, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44036    Hearing Date: August 22, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Pleadings Framing Motion

Plaintiffs Lazaro Cid and Maria Cid (the Cid Plaintiffs) sue Defendants American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) and Does 1-10 pursuant to a Third Amended Complaint (SAC) alleging (1)-(4) four claims rooted in the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (SBA) and (5) a claim for concealment.

The SBA claims arise from allegations that, on or about November 10, 2017, Plaintiffs purchased a Honda-manufactured 2018 Honda Odyssey (Vehicle) from a Honda authorized dealership subject to express warranties from Honda, only for the Vehicle to exhibit or develop defects related to the Vehicle’s infotainment system, electrical system, gauge control, brakes, fuel pump motor, rear-view camera, and battery, among others.

The concealment claim arose from allegations that Honda committed fraud by intentionally failing to disclose that the Vehicle’s infotainment system was defective, thereby causing damages to the Cid Plaintiffs, who would not have purchased the Vehicle had they known about the infotainment defects at the time of purchase.

Motion for Summary Adjudication and Dismissal

On June 6, 2023, Honda moved for summary adjudication of the TAC’s fifth cause of action for concealment and the TAC’s prayer for punitive damages. The motion was set for hearing on August 22, 2023.

On August 10, 2023, rather than oppose the motion for summary adjudication, the Cid Plaintiffs filed a Request for Dismissal on form CIV-110, which dismissed the TAC’s concealment claim, without prejudice.

Honda’s motion for summary adjudication is now before the Court.

Request for Judicial Notice

The Court DECLINES to take judicial notice of the documents filed for notice by Honda because the Court need not rely on the same to reach its determination for this motion. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.)

Motion for Summary Adjudication

Legal Standard

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact for trial or that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) A party may also seek summary adjudication of select causes of action, affirmative defenses, claims for damages, or issues of duty, which may be made by a standalone motion or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and proceeds in all procedural respects like a motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (f)(1)-(2), (t); see Lilienthal & Fowler v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1848, 1854-1855, questioned by dictum in Bagley v. TRW, Inc. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1094, fn. 2 [finding that summary adjudication may be granted as to separate factual grounds supporting a claim stated as a single count because the separate grounds state a separate cause of action].) The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make prima facie showing no triable material fact issues. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) This burden on summary judgment or adjudication “is more properly one of persuasion rather than proof, since he must persuade the court that there is no material fact for a reasonable trier of fact to find, and not to prove any such fact to the satisfaction of the court itself as though it were sitting as the trier of fact.” (Id. at p. 850, fn. 11.) If the moving party meets this burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make a rebuttal prima facie showing that a triable issue of material fact exists. (Id. at p. 849.) “[I]n ruling on motions for summary judgment courts are to ‘“liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.”’ [Citations].” (Cheal v. El Camino Hospital (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 736, 760.)

TAC, Fifth Cause of Action, Concealment: MOOT.

Because the Cid Plaintiffs dismissed the TAC’s concealment claim on August 10, 2023, Honda’s motion is MOOT as to this cause of action. (See 8/10/23 Request for Dismissal.)

TAC, Prayer, Punitive Damages: GRANTED.

Honda moves for summary adjudication of the TAC’s prayer for punitive damages on the grounds that the Cid “Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages is premised solely on their fifth cause of action for fraudulent inducement-concealment” and that “[b]ecause [the Cid] Plaintiffs failed to produce evidence to support their claim for fraudulent inducement - concealment, their prayer for punitive damages likewise fails.” (Mot., pp. 18-19.)

The Court finds that this position carries Honda’s burden on summary adjudication.

After the Cid Plaintiffs dismissed their concealment claim (8/10/23 Request for Dismissal), the only operative claims remaining in this action were the TAC’s four SBA claims (TAC, ¶¶ 53-71). However, Song-Beverly claims cannot support punitive damages. (See Civ. Code, § 1794, subds. (b)-(e) [statutory subdivisions for civil penalties under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, notably failing to include punitive damages in the recovery scheme]; see also Anderson v. Ford Motor Co. (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 946, 964-973 [permitting recovery of punitive damages in case involving Song-Beverly claims insofar as recovery on Song-Beverly claims only involved civil penalties and punitive damages were instead related to fraud claims].) Under these circumstances, Honda is correct that the Cid Plaintiffs have no evidence supporting punitive damages.

The Cid Plaintiffs have failed to file an opposition, thus failing to carry their burden on summary adjudication. Nevertheless, even if the Cid Plaintiffs had filed an opposition, unless they had sufficiently argued for a change in the law, their dismissal of the concealment claim undercut the only foundation on which punitive damages could have stood.

Summary adjudication of the TAC’s prayer for punitive damages is thus GRANTED. 

Conclusion

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is MOOT as to the Third Amended Complaint’s fifth cause of action for concealment and GRANTED as to the Third Amended Complaint’s prayer for punitive damages.