Judge Blaine K. Bowman, Case Number: 37-2022-00024048-CL-CO-CTL, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2022-00024048-CL-CO-CTL, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 23, 2024

05/24/2024 08:30:00 AM C-74 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Limited Contract - Other Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00024048-CL-CO-CTL KIRK VS TARGET AUTO GROUP [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The court addresses the evidentiary issues. Defendant United Auto Credit Corporation's evidentiary objections are all OVERRULED.

The court then rules as follows. Defendant United Auto Credit Corporation's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. United Auto's alternate motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the violation of Vehicle Code � 5753 cause of action and DENIED as to the violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and violation of Business and Professions Code � 17200 causes of action.

Preliminarily, both sides agree that UACC's liability is derivative of the alleged liability of Defendant Target Auto Group (referred to in Plaintiff's Complaint as 'SELLER').

Violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code � 1750 et seq.

As to this cause of action the complaint alleges: 48. SELLER violated the CLRA by any of the following, possibly including: (1) misrepresenting the damage history to the VEHICLE and/or its subsequent repair to the VEHICLE to induce the sale and have the sales contract signed; (2) misrepresenting the quality and condition, or value of the VEHICLE; (3) negotiating the price of the VEHICLE as a 'non-damaged' vehicle, when the vehicle did in fact have damage and vehicle not being worth the agreed upon price, and/or making misleading or false statements concerning reasons of price reduction; (4) misrepresenting intent to provide title after 15 days of receipt of payments, (5) concealing known or misrepresenting accident and/or frame damage from a consumer.

UACC submits evidence which UACC contends establishes that, prior to purchasing the vehicle, Plaintiff was provided with and/or acknowledged the Motor Vehicle Damage and Title Brand Disclosure Form, which notes that the Vehicle suffered 'significant damage from an accident or other source' [SSUMF 3]; and, prior to purchasing the vehicle, Plaintiff was provided with and/or acknowledged the Electronic Signature Acknowledgment, which notes that Plaintiff 'consented to use electronic signatures to sign the documents necessary to complete a retail installment transaction' with Target Auto Group for the purchase of the vehicle [SSUMF 4]. UACC argues that Plaintiff's signature on the Motor Vehicle Damage and Title Brand Disclosure Form precludes a finding of liability under the CLRA. In opposition Plaintiff submits evidence that the dealer's representative 'Freddie was the one who 'clicked' to apply my signature to documents' and 'I was not permitted to touch the computer to see the screen better except for when Freddie moved the screen to point out what he wanted me to see' [Plaintiff's response to Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3099717 3 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: KIRK VS TARGET AUTO GROUP [IMAGED] 37-2022-00024048-CL-CO-CTL SSUMF 4; Declaration of Paul Kirk, � 5]. However, the Electronic Signature Acknowledgement, which Plaintiff does not dispute Plaintiff signed [Plaintiff's response to SSUMF 4], provides: I was in physical control of the key board, mouse or other device to click a button, signature box, or initial box that applied my electronic signature to the documents with the intent to sign the documents as if I provided my handwritten signature on the documents.

Having signed the Electronic Signature Acknowledgement, Plaintiff is bound by its terms. See, Markborough California, Inc. v. Superior Court (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 705, 716. Plaintiff fails to provide any authority allowing Plaintiff to avoid the terms of the Electronic Signature Acknowledgement by submitting a declaration stating facts contrary to those contained within the Electronic Signature Acknowledgement signed by Plaintiff.

However, in opposition Plaintiff also submits evidence that Target Auto represented that damage was '100% properly repaired' [Plaintiff's response to SSUMF 3; Declaration of Plaintiff, � 6]. Nothing in the Motor Vehicle Damage and Title Brand Disclosure Form references the scope of repairs or the quality of repairs performed on the vehicle. In reply UACC argues that such claim is outside of the allegations of the Complaint. The court finds allegations of �� 17, 18, 19, 24, 28 and 48 sufficient to include such alleged misrepresentation regarding repairs. The court finds Plaintiff's evidence of the alleged misrepresentation regarding repairs sufficient to create triable issues of material fact as to whether such alleged misrepresentations were in violation of the CLRA.

Violation of Vehicle Code Section 5753 The Complaint alleges: 66. SELLER failed to provide title to the VEHICLE to Plaintiff within 15 days after receipt of all payments for the VEHICLE.

Pursuant to Vehicle Code � 5753 [Delivery of certificate of ownership and registration card]: (a) It is unlawful for any person to fail or neglect properly to endorse, date, and deliver the certificate of ownership and, when having possession, to deliver the registration card to a transferee who is lawfully entitled to a transfer of registration.

. . . .

(c)(1) Within 15 business days after receiving payment in full for the satisfaction of a security interest and a written instrument signed by the grantor of the security interest designating the transferee and authorizing release of the legal owner's interest, the legal owner shall release its security interest and mail, transmit, or deliver the vehicle's certificate of ownership to the transferee who, due to satisfaction of the security interest, is lawfully entitled to the transfer of legal ownership.

UACC submits undisputed evidence that as of November 21, 2023, Plaintiff owes a balance of $6,736.95 on the vehicle to UACC [SSUMF 6]. Plaintiff offers no evidence in opposition. Given the outstanding balance, Plaintiff fails to establish triable issues of material fact as to whether UACC is required to provide the title to Plaintiff. To the extent Plaintiff argues that Target Auto delayed sending the title to UACC, Plaintiff fails to provide any authority affording Plaintiff standing to pursue a claim against UACC for any such delay.

The court summarily adjudicates the second cause of action for violation of Vehicle Code � 5753 in favor of Defendant United Auto Credit Corporation and against Plaintiff.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3099717 3 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: KIRK VS TARGET AUTO GROUP [IMAGED] 37-2022-00024048-CL-CO-CTL Violation of California Business and Professions Code � 17200, et seq. Unlawful Acts or Practices UACC's motion as to this cause of action is dependent on the failure of Plaintiff's CLRA and Vehicle Code � 5753 causes of action. For the reasons set forth above, the court finds triable issues of material fact as to Plaintiff's CLRA cause of action. A CLRA violation will support a UCL cause of action. See, Gutierrez v. Carmax Auto Superstores California (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1234, 1265. As such, the court finds triable issues of material fact as to the UCL cause of action.

If this tentative ruling is confirmed the Minute Order will be the final order of the court and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3099717 3