Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 20STCV41226, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41226    Hearing Date: March 27, 2024    Dept: 76

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 12

With this motion, Plaintiffs seek to preclude Honda from introducing evidence or argument regarding the existence of a third-party dispute resolution process.  The basis for this motion is Plaintiff’s contention that Honda’s program, which is not certified by the Department of Consumer Affairs, does not meet the requirements of Civil Code section 1794(e), and thus does not offer any safe harbor from non-willful civil penalties.  Honda contends that its program “substantially complies” with Civil Code section 1793.22 despite the lack of certification, thus meeting the requirements of section 1794(e).  Honda also argues that it should be Plaintiffs’ burden to establish noncompliance.

The reference to a “qualified third-party dispute resolution process” in section 1794(e)(2) is an exception to liability for civil penalties that might otherwise be available.  In other words, it is a safe harbor provision that hinges on a finding that the process substantially complies with statutory requirements.  Typically, the burden of establishing a safe harbor falls on a defendant claiming the safe harbor, rather than the burden being placed on the plaintiff to negate the safe harbor.  (See, e.g., Klein v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1379 (holding that for purposes of the UCL, “defendant must show that a statute “explicitly prohibit[s] liability for the defendant's acts or omissions.”) 

By barring Honda from presenting evidence of its dispute resolution program, the Court would be summarily adjudicating a defense via a motion in limine, which violates the principle that in limine rulings cannot be a disguised substitute for summary adjudication under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.  The motion is therefore DENIED.  The Court will consider appropriate jury instructions on the issue of substantial compliance. 

Plaintiffs Motion in Limine No. 3/Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 2

These counterpart motions seek rulings on the relevance/admissibility of evidence concerning defects or nonconformities that were repaired on a single presentation, including specified “non-symptomatic” recalls and defects listed in Defendant’s motion.

Plaintiffs contend that they must show only that Defendant had a reasonable number of repair attempts to conform the subject vehicle to warranty, regardless of whether any particular defect might have been repaired on a single presentation.  Honda argues that this theory impermissibly aggregates “minor and/or admittedly repaired concerns” to cobble together a claim.  This issue is not directly addressed within the Song-Beverly Act itself, nor any cases construing the statute.  Honda contends that Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191, directs the Court and trier of fact to look at individual defects and their repair status to determine whether a substantial impairment. 

The Court agrees with Honda.  Plaintiffs’ approach would push the concept of a warranty requiring a manufacturer to repair or replace its products towards a guarantee of defect-free products.  To the extent that Plaintiffs argue that Honda’s approach would allow a manufacturer to escape liability for a vehicle with 1,000 defects that were each repaired on the first presentation, such hypothetical circumstances would likely have remedy under other theories, such as the 30-day repair requirement of Civil Code section 1793.2(b).

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED and Honda’s motion is GRANTED.