Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV34739, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34739    Hearing Date: November 20, 2024    Dept: 52

Defendant’s Supplemental Motion in Limine No. 19

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. moves in limine to exclude evidence of plaintiff’s repair visits after he filed this action in September 2021.  Specifically, defendant moves to exclude evidence of six repair visits from July 2, 2022, to October 7, 2024.  (Motion, p. 2; Zipser Decl., Ex. B.) 

Defendant relies on Valdovinos v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 732 (Valdovinos) for the proposition that repair visits after plaintiff filed the lawsuit are not actionable or relevant to a Song-Beverly claim.  The relevant portion of that opinion concerns the remedy of civil penalties for willful violations of the Song-Beverly Act.  (Id. at pp. 759-771.)  The court stated, “The inquiry into whether a manufacturer’s conduct in ‘fail[ing] to comply’ with the Act was ‘willful’ necessarily focuses on a specific window of time.  [¶] The pertinent window starts once the consumer has presented a sufficiently nonconforming vehicle to an authorized ‘service or repair’ facility and provided the manufacturer a ‘reasonable number of attempts’ to fix that nonconformity.”  (Id. at pp. 762-763.)  “The pertinent window ends once the consumer has invoked the right to sue under the Act.  This end point is implied from the function of the Act’s civil penalty—that is, to deter dilatory conduct by manufacturers and thereby to encourage the prompt replacement or repurchase of defective vehicles.”  (Id. at p. 763.)  The court therefore held that “the scope of evidence relevant to willfulness does not include Kia’s conduct outside the pertinent window of time” beginning when Kia violated the law and ending when plaintiff filed suit.  (Id. at p. 771.)

Valdovinos thus does not support defendant’s argument that evidence of repair visits occurring after plaintiff filed suit is per se irrelevant.  Assuming any defects after plaintiff filed suit are not actionable themselves, evidence of repair visits after filing may be relevant to prove the vehicle was defective during the warranty.  In Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, the court reasoned, “Evidence that a problem was fixed for a period of time but reappears at a later date is relevant to determining whether a fundamental problem in the vehicle was ever resolved.  [Citation.]  Indeed, that a defect first appears after a warranty has expired does not necessarily mean the defect did not exist when the product was purchased.  [Citation.]  Postwarranty repair evidence may be admitted on a case-by-case basis where it is relevant to showing the vehicle was not repaired to conform to the warranty during the warranty’s existence.”  (Id. at p. 149.)  The court held that repairs after the warranty expired were “relevant to establishing the transmission was not repaired to match the warranty while the warranty was in effect.”  (Ibid.)  The Court of Appeal further held that the trial court did not err in refusing to exclude evidence of postwarranty repairs under Evidence Code section 352.  (Id. at pp. 146-151.) 

Defendant shows the six repair visits beginning in 2022 are not relevant to prove the vehicle was defective before plaintiff filed the action.  This evidence does not have “any tendency in reason to prove or disprove” (Evid. Code, § 210) that defendant failed to adequately repair the vehicle’s infotainment system during the warranty period.  In this action, plaintiff alleges the vehicle did not conform to the warranty because of defects in its “infotainment” system.  (4AC, ¶¶ 21-24.)  The new vehicle warranty provides, “Honda will repair or replace any part that is defective in material or workmanship under normal use.”  (Id., Ex. A.)  But the warranty “does not cover” several things, including “[n]ormal wear or deterioration of any part”, “[t]he adding of any fluids, unless they are needed as part of a warranty repair”, or “[e]xpendable maintenance items (such as filters, or brake pads/linings) when replaced due to normal wear or customer abuse.”  (Ibid.)  Evidence of repairs for issues not covered under the warranty are not relevant to this action. 

Of the six visits, the first two concerned only the vehicle’s driver-assist functions.  Visits three, four, and six were solely for regular maintenance, such as oil changes and a multi-purpose inspection.  Visit five included regular maintenance, but also a recommended recall related to the infotainment system—which plaintiff declined. 

Plaintiff’s opposition does not adequately address the specific evidence defendant moves to exclude.  Plaintiff contends, “Defendant is free to argue to the jury that certain repair visits should not be considered and do not evidence defects that substantially impair the use, value or safety of the Vehicle.  Defendant should not be permitted, to hide the ball from the jury.”  (Opp., p. 4.)  But plaintiff offers no reason why evidence of these six repair visits is relevant to whether plaintiff’s vehicle failed to conform to the warranty.  Excluding this evidence does not constitute hiding the ball.  Assuming this evidence is relevant, the court finds “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.”  (Evid. Code, § 352.)

Defendant’s supplemental motion in limine No. 19 is granted.  The court hereby excludes evidence and argument regarding the six repair visits from July 2, 2022, to October 7, 2024.  (Motion, p. 2; Zepser Decl., Ex. B.)