Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 22GDCV00455, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22GDCV00455    Hearing Date: October 12, 2023    Dept: E

Case Name:     Khalaf v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, et al.

Hearing Date: October 12, 2023       

Case No:         22GDCV00455                                             

Trial Date:       November 13, 2023 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Moving Party:             Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Responding Party:       Plaintiff Wala Ali Khalaf

RELIEF REQUESTED:

            Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC moves for summary judgment on the ground that there are no triable issues of material fact to support any of Plaintiff’s causes of actions because Plaintiff did not receive a new warranty in connection with the sale of the subject vehicle.

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff, Wala Ali Khalaf (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action on July 26, 2022 against Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Defendant”). Following the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleading, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging three causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty, and (3) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2 The instant action surrounds allegations pertaining to a 2021 Mercedes-Benz GLB250W that Plaintiff leased on March 27, 2021.

On July 12, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion for summary judgment.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is continued to November 17, 2023. Trial is continued from November 13, 2023 to December 18, 2023.

ANALYSIS:

Legal Standard

“Code of Civil Procedure § 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1110, 1119.)  “[A] party may not defeat summary judgment by means of declarations or affidavits which contradict that party’s deposition testimony or sworn discovery responses.”  (Minish v. Hanuman Fellowship (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 437, 459; see also D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 25.) A plaintiff cannot “rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).) 

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 828.)  Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to show that there is a triable issue as to any material fact.  (Id. at 849.)  With respect to a motion for summary judgment “the moving party’s affidavits are strictly construed while those of the opposing party are liberally construed.”  (Walker v. Blue Cross of California (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 985, 990.) With respect to a motion for summary judgment “if it is not set forth in the separate statement, it does not exist.”  (San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 313.) 

Discussion

            In lieu of a formal opposition, Plaintiff requests the Court to continue the instant motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(h).

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel attests that additional discovery is needed regarding the subject vehicle’s prior commercial ownership history as well as Defendant’s policies and procedures for use, maintenance, and warranty start date entries and recordings for MBUSA dealer-owned service loaner. . . .” (Serrano Decl. ¶ 18.)

Plaintiff’s counsel suspects that this evidence would show that Defendant is not in compliance with its own policies. (Ibid.) Thus, it is asserted that Plaintiff was the first retail purchaser of the subject vehicle, and as a result, the warranty period started at the time of Plaintiff’s purchase. (Id. at ¶ 17.)

Plaintiff’s counsel states that Defendant has not complied yet with the Court’s August 4, 2023 Minute Order to provide further verified responses and response documents regarding Defendant’s internal warranty policies and procedures, which would be necessary to support Plaintiff’s opposition. (Id. at ¶¶ 23-28.)

Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks to depose Defendant’s person most knowledgeable on the topics of the subject vehicle’s prior commercial ownership history, MBUSA’s warranty administration, policies, and procedures for use, maintenance, recording, and entry for warranty start dates for “dealer-owned” service loaner vehicles.” (Id. at ¶¶ 22, 37.)

Under the circumstances, the Court finds it appropriate to continue the hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff’s counsel’s affidavit supports “that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot. . . be presented” at this time due to Defendant’s delay in complying with the Court’s August 4, 2023 Minute Order as well as Plaintiff’s need to depose Defendant’s PMK. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(h).) Without this continuance, it appears Plaintiff would be unduly prejudiced.

            Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is continued to November 17, 2023. Trial is continued from November 13, 2023 to December 18, 2023. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 128.5(a) are not considered because proper notice has not been provided and the safe-harbor provision has not been followed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5(f).)