Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 22PSCV01006, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.



Case Number: 22PSCV01006    Hearing Date: October 24, 2023    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

 

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT is CONTINUED (again) pending the CA Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez.

 

Background

 

This is a lemon law case. Plaintiffs PEDRO SORIA and ANDRES SORIA (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege the following against Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”): Plaintiffs purchased a used 2014 Ford Fusion (“Vehicle”) that was not represented as a “lemon” vehicle “when in fact Ford had engaged in multiple service inquires to repair the vehicle.”[1] However, that same day as purchase, the Vehicle experienced engine issues and Defendant failed to cure the defect(s).

 

On September 7, 2022, Plaintiffs filed suit for:


1.     Failure to Replace or Make Restitution

2.     Breach of Express Warranties

3.     Failure to Begin Repairs Within Reasonable Time and Complete Repairs Within 30 Days

4.     Breach of Implied Warranty

5.     Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Action

6.     Negligent Misrepresentation

7.     Fraudulent Misrepresentation

8.     Concealment

 

On February 14, 2023, Defendant filed their first demurrer, which the court’s tentative was to overrule due to untimeliness.

 

On March 29, 2023, the court allowed the parties to file a stipulation to waive the untimeliness of the demurrer and consider the pleading on its merits. The hearing on the demurrer was continued.

 

On June 2, 2023, the court continued the hearing on the instant demurrer.

 

Discussion

 

Previously, the court continued the demurrer because a large basis of Defendant’s demurrer is that the SBA does not apply to used vehicles citing to Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC, (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209, 223. As the California Supreme Court has granted the petition for review, the court again continues the hearing pending the California Supreme Court’s decision.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the foregoing, the demurrer is continued.


[1] The vehicle is used as evidenced by Plaintiffs numerous references to a “USED VEHICLE DISCLOSURE” which accompanied the purchase of the vehicle. (See e.g., Complaint ¶¶11, 65, 85, 89.)