Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: BC723102, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC723102    Hearing Date: April 6, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Plaintiff Nikelle Janae Franklin sued Defendant Kia America, Inc. [sued as Kia Motors America, Inc.] (“Kia” or “Kia America”) and Does 1 to 10 pursuant to a March 28, 2019 First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging (1)-(5) five causes of action rooted in California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly”) and (6)-(7) two fraud claims related to concealment or intentional misrepresentation of engine defects in the 2012 Kia Sorento (“Subject Vehicle”) at issue, as manufactured by Kia America and leased/purchased by Plaintiff Franklin on July 27, 2011, supporting, among other things, prayers for punitive damages against Kia America.

On April 30, 2019, Kia America filed a demurrer to the FAC’s third to seventh causes of action and a motion to strike punitive damages and civil penalties from the FAC, which Plaintiff Franklin opposed on July 15, 2019 and to which Kia replied on July 18, 2019.

On July 26, 2019, the Court heard the demurrer and motion to strike, sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend as to the FAC’s fifth cause of action but overruling the demurrer as to the FAC’s third, fourth, sixth, and seventh causes of action and denying the motion to strike.

On January 13, 2022, Kia made a motion for summary adjudication of the FAC’s first, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh causes of action, as well as the FAC’s prayer for punitive damages, which Plaintiff Franklin opposed on September 15, 2022 and to which Kia replied on October 28, 2022.

On November 7, 2022, the Court issued a ruling on Kia’s summary adjudication motion, granting relief as to the FAC’s first, fourth, and sixth causes of action, but denying relief as to the FAC’s third and seventh cause of action, as well as the prayer for punitive damages. The Court denied adjudication of the seventh cause of action and prayer for punitive damages on the grounds that Kia America filed an overly long memorandum of points and authorities in support of the January 13th motion, and that arguments related to the intentional misrepresentation claim and punitive damages were contained in pages of the memo not considered by the Court pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113.

On November 22, 2022, Kia America filed a second motion for summary adjudication, this time directed at the FAC’s seventh cause of action and the prayer for punitive damages, which Plaintiff Franklin has failed to oppose. Instead, on March 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of the FAC’s seventh cause of action.

Motion for Summary Adjudication

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 and 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 an entire a cause of action or, under certain circumstances, parts thereof, which may be made by a standalone motion or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and proceeds in all procedural respects as 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, 1854-55; see also Public Utilities Com. v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 364, 380.) 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 “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 converse prima facie showing that a triable issue of material fact exists. (Ibid.) The evidence of the moving party is strictly construed, and the evidence of the opposing party liberally construed. (Crouse v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1988) 67 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1524.) Doubts as to the propriety of granting the motion must be resolved in favor of the party resisting the motion. (Stationers Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 412, 417.)

First Amended Complaint, Seventh Cause of Action: MOOT.

In light of Plaintiff’s March 23, 2023 dismissal without prejudice, Kia America’s motion is MOOT as to the FAC’s seventh cause of action.

First Amended Complaint, Punitive Damages: GRANTED.

In its motion, Kia America argues that the punitive damages prayer in the FAC fails on summary adjudication because (1) “there is zero evidence—much less clear and convincing evidence—that [Kia America] or any of its employees acted with malice, oppression, or fraud” and (2) “Plaintiff cannot show that any alleged act of oppression, fraud, or malice by [Kia America] was ratified by a [Kia America] officer, director, managing agent, or employee exercising substantial authority over decisions that ultimately determine corporate policy.” (Mot., 21:3-9.)

Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the motion for summary adjudication.  Neither has Kia America filed a reply in support of its summary adjudication motion.

The Court finds that, as a matter of law, no triable issues of material fact exist as to the punitive damages prayed for in the FAC, even had she filed an opposition.

Plaintiff’s operative causes of action against Kia America are limited to the FAC’s second and third causes of action because (1) the Court’s July 26, 2019 demurrer ruling disposed of the FAC’s fifth cause of action, (2) the Court’s November 7, 2022 summary adjudication ruling disposed of the FAC’s first, fourth, and sixth causes of action, and (3) Plaintiff dismissed the seventh cause of action without prejudice on February 23, 2023. The FAC’s second and third causes of action are Song-Beverly claims. (See FAC, ¶¶ 83-87, 88-90.) 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].)

Summary adjudication is thus GRANTED as to the FAC’s punitive damages prayer.

Conclusion

Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is (1) MOOT as to the FAC’s seventh cause of action in lieu of Plaintiff Nikelle Janae Franklin’s March 23, 2023 dismissal without prejudice of the same claim and (2) GRANTED as to punitive damages because no triable issues of material fact exist as to Plaintiff’s entitlement to such relief where the only two surviving causes of action in the operative FAC do not, as a matter of law, support recovery thereof.