Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV12930, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12930    Hearing Date: November 27, 2023    Dept: 52

Defendant General Motors LLC’s Motion for Summary Adjudication

Defendant General Motors LLC moves for summary adjudication of plaintiff Marianne Salazar’s claim for damages “for the optional, non-GM product[s] Plaintiff bought with her vehicle.”  (Motion, p. 2.) 

Defendant’s motion is procedurally defective.  “A party may move for summary adjudication as to … one or more claims for damages” if it contends “there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code.”  (CCP § 437c(f)(1).)  “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.”  (Ibid.)  This subdivision “does not permit summary adjudication of a single item of compensatory damage which does not dispose of an entire cause of action.”  (DeCastro West Chodorow & Burns, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 410, 422.)

Summary adjudication of a claim for damages other than punitive damages requires a special procedure.   “Notwithstanding subdivision (f), a party may move for summary adjudication of a legal issue or a claim for damages other than punitive damages that does not completely dispose of a cause of action, affirmative defense, or issue of duty” if the (1) parties stipulate to doing so and (2) the court permits it.  (CCP § 437c(t).) 

Defendant moves for summary adjudication of specific portions of plaintiff’s damages: that defendant is not liable for damages arising from “three optional, non-GM products for $3,388: (1) a theft deterrent device for $998, (2) a surface protection product for $1,495; and (3) a debt cancellation agreement for $895.”  (Motion, p. 3.)  That constitutes “a claim for damages other than punitive damages that does not completely dispose of a cause of action.”  (CCP § 437c(t).)  Plaintiff did not stipulate to allow defendant to file such a motion.  The court did not permit such a motion for partial summary adjudication. 

In its reply brief, defendant argues, “GM’s Motion is inherently related to civil penalties even though GM’s Motion appears to address only the actual damages on its face.  Since GM’s Motion is inherently related to civil penalties, Plaintiff’s argument is meritless because a claim for civil penalties is a ‘cause of action’ pursuant to the primary rights theory and binding case law.”  (Reply, p. 2.) 

Defendant did not move for summary adjudication of plaintiff’s claim for civil penalties.  The court cannot grant summary adjudication of something for which the motion did not seek summary adjudication.  “Where a remedy as drastic as summary judgment is involved, due process requires a party be fully advised of the issues to be addressed and be given adequate notice of what facts it must rebut in order to prevail.”  (San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 316; accord Urshan v. Musicians’ Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 766 [trial courts have no “authority to shorten the notice period for hearing summary judgment motions”].) 

The moving papers seek summary adjudication of three specific items included in plaintiff’s damages totaling $3,388.  (Motion, p. 5.)  Not of civil penalties.  Moreover, the motion is not “inherently related to civil penalties.”  Whether plaintiff can recover civil penalties is not related to the non-manufacturer items plaintiff paid for when buying the car.  Recovering civil penalties requires the plaintiff to “establish[] that the failure to comply was willful.”  (Civ. Code, § 1794(c).)  Defendant’s argument that plaintiff cannot recover the $3,388 in damages for three specified items relies on the provision that restitution “exclud[es] nonmanufacturer items installed by a dealer or the buyer.”  (Civ. Code, § 1793.2(d)(2)(B).)   

Defendant’s reply also argues, “GM has carried its burden of proof as to its argument that Plaintiff may not recover as damages the negative equity … of “$8,300” that was “rolled into the purchase loan.”  (Reply, p. 4.)  As with civil penalties, defendant’s motion did not seek summary adjudication of plaintiff’s right to damages arising from the $8,300 in negative equity.  And even if it had, that $8,300 would constitute a portion of damages other than punitive damages and would not dispose of an entire cause of action.

Defendant seeks to summarily adjudicate a claim for damages other than punitive damages.  Doing so would not dispose of an entire cause of action.  The motion is thus defective under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivisions (f)(1) and (t).

Disposition

Defendant General Motors LLC’s motion for summary adjudication is denied.