Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Salazar v. Ford Motor Company, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling
Defendant Ford Motor Company’s (“Defendant”) unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative Summary Adjudication (“Motion”), is GRANTED.
“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That is because of the general principle that a party who seeks a court's action in his favor bears the burden of persuasion thereon. (See Evid. Code, § 500.) There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850.)
“The 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. In determining if the papers show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact, the court shall consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers, except the evidence to which objections have been made and sustained by the court, and all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence, except summary judgment shall not be granted by the court based on inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence if contradicted by other inferences or evidence that raise a triable issue as to any material fact.” (Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(c).)
“(f)(1) A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.
(2) A motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. A party shall not move for summary judgment based on issues asserted in a prior motion for summary adjudicate on and denied by the court unless that party establishes, to the satisfaction of the court, newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law supporting the issues reasserted in the summary judgment motion.” (Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(f).)
“For purposes of motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication:
. . .
(2) A defendant or cross-defendant has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. Once the defendant or cross-defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff or cross-complainant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The plaintiff or cross-complainant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(p)(2).)
Here, plaintiff Victor M. Salazar (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint with two causes of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act - Civ. Code. §§ 1790, et seq. (“Act”), one cause of action for breach of express warranty and the other for breach of implied warranty. The Act applies only to consumer goods purchased within California. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1792 and 1793.2; Cummins, Inc. v. Superior Ct. (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 478, 492-93.)
Defendant has produced evidence showing the 2017 Ford Escape with VIN: 1FMCU9GD1HUC10931 (“Vehicle”), that Plaintiff identified in his complaint as the subject of this lawsuit, was purchased in and delivered to Utah. (Jenkins Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Title was then issued for the Vehicle for an address in Utah. (Jenkins Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B.) It was not until approximately five-months after the Vehicle was purchased that Vehicle ownership appears to have been transferred to a California address. (Jenkins Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. C.) Defendant has provided evidence the Vehicle was not purchased in California and thus would not be covered under the Act. Defendant has met its initial burden of showing Plaintiff will be unable to establish one or more of the elements of both Plaintiff’s causes of action. The burden of proof transferred to Plaintiff to show triable issues of material fact remain, however Plaintiff has failed to meet the transferred burden by failing to file any opposition.
The Motion is GRANTED.
Defendant to give notice.