Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 21STCV38016, Date: 2025-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38016    Hearing Date: February 10, 2025    Dept: 76

            This is a Lemon Law action whereby Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to repair the subject vehicle to conform to warranties after a reasonable number of attempts.

Defendant BMW of North America, LLC moves for reconsideration of the Court’s January 2, 2024 denial of summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant BMW of North America, LLC’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED.

            In order to give the parties the full statutory time to brief the summary judgment motion, under the guidelines effective January 1, 2025, (81 days, plus 5 days for mail service; 20 days for opposition; 11 days for the reply—Civ. Proc. Code, § 437c(a)(2), (b)(2) & (4).)), the hearing on the March 4, 2025 trial date will be CONTINUED. The parties are to advise the Court of available dates for a continued trial date, with the renewed motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication to be set pursuant to code relative to the continued trial date. The Court does not intend to move the discovery cutoff dates. 

ANALYSIS

Discussion

Motion For Reconsideration

Defendant BMW of North America, LLC moves the Court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a) to:

(i) Vacate and set aside its Order dated January 2, 2024, denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication; and

(ii) Set a new date for hearing of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication. This Motion will be made on the grounds that causes of action of Plaintiffs Fatima Garcia, Jean Carlos Garcia and Carlos Garcia (“Plaintiffs”) under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly”) fail, as set forth in the recent California Supreme Court decision in Rodriguez v. FCA US, No. S274625 (Cal. October 31, 2024 awaiting publication)

            This motion was express noticed as one under Civ. Proc. Code, § 1008(a), which has a 10-day time limit.

            However, there is no time limit for a motion pursuant to subdivision (b), which allows for renewed motions:

(b) A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new[1] or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. For a failure to comply with this subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on ex parte motion.

     (Civ. Proc. Code, § 1008(b).)

            This motion was filed on November 12, 2024—less than 2 weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez v. FCA US LLC, dated October 30, 2024 constitutes new or different law which was not published at the time of this Court’s January 2, 2024 ruling, and which may affect the extent to which this case should be tried before a jury. In particular, the Court believes that a renewed motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication is warranted, given the following holding in Rodriguez, upon which the parties are to focus:

We conclude that a motor vehicle purchased with an unexpired manufacturer's new car warranty does not qualify as a “motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer's new car warranty” under section 1793.22, subdivision (e)(2)'s definition of “new motor vehicle” unless the new car warranty was issued with the sale. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

(Rodriguez v. FCA US LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189, 196 [bold emphasis and underlining added].) 

            As such, the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED.

            In order to give the parties the full statutory time to brief the summary judgment motion, under the guidelines effective January 1, 2025, (81 days, plus 5 days for mail service; 20 days for opposition; 11 days for the reply—Civ. Proc. Code, § 437c(a)(2), (b)(2) & (4).)), the hearing on the March 4, 2025 trial date will be CONTINUED. The parties are to advise the Court of available dates for a continued trial date, with the renewed motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication to be set pursuant to code relative to the continued trial date. The Court does not intend to move the discovery cutoff dates.