Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV09770, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09770    Hearing Date: January 18, 2024    Dept: 74

Mario Miramontes v. General Motors, LLC

Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from a defective 2017 Chevrolet Traverse.

            On March 21, 2022, Plaintiff Mario Miramontes (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant). In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty, and (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2.

            On July 7, 2023, Defendant filed this motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.

LEGAL STANDARD 

            “¿[A] motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.¿” (¿¿Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c)¿¿.) The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. (¿¿Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850¿¿.) If the moving party carries this burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make a prima facie showing that a triable issue of material fact exists. (¿¿Ibid.¿¿) Courts “¿liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.¿” (¿¿Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389¿¿.)

DISCUSSION 

            In his opposition, Plaintiff seeks relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h): “If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment […] that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just. The application to continue the motion to obtain necessary discovery may also be made by ex parte motion at any time on or before the date the opposition response to the motion is due.”

            To that end, Plaintiff contends there may be evidence that shows the subject vehicle was dealer-owned when Plaintiff purchased it. (Yang Decl., ¶ 25.) Such evidence includes documents related to the subject vehicle’s prior ownership, the subject vehicle’s prior lease agreement, and contracts between Defendant, Penske Chevrolet, and Cerritos Nissan. (Yang Decl., ¶ 25.) Plaintiff further claims he cannot present this evidence in his opposition because of a pending deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable, in addition to other outstanding discovery issues. (Yang Decl., ¶¶ 26-27.) In addition, Plaintiff has described the steps he will take to obtain the evidence (motions to compel compliance for outstanding discovery issues) and estimates this will require 120 days. (Yang Decl., ¶¶ 28, 31.) Thus, the court will grant Plaintiff’s request for a continuance.

            CONCLUSION

                Based on the foregoing, the court continues this hearing to a later date.

            Defendant is ordered to give notice.