Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV32134, Date: 2025-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32134    Hearing Date: February 7, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On August 30, 2021, Plaintiffs Liana Gabrielyan and Sona Simonyan filed this action against Defendants BMW of North America, LLC (BMW NA) and Finchey Corporation of California, asserting two causes of action under the Song-Beverly Act. BMW NA is the only remaining Defendant. On February 28, 2022, this Court granted BMW NA’s motion to compel arbitration. The parties thereafter initiated arbitration with JAMS, but subsequently stipulated to return to court.

            On April 17, 2024, BMW NA filed the instant motion for summary judgment or adjudication in the alternative. Plaintiffs’ filed their opposition on July 24, 2024. BMW NA filed its reply on July 31, 2024.

            The Court continued the motion to February 7, 2025 pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez v. FCA US LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189, 189.

LEGAL STANDARD

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.” (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-382.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.) 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.)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

            Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.

DISCUSSION

“[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.” (Rodriguez v. FCA US LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189, 196.) The Act does not cover “used vehicles with a balance remaining on the manufacturer's new car warranty.” (Id. at p. 206.) Summary judgment for the manufacturer was affirmed in Rodriguez, where the subject vehicle was “a two-year-old car with over 55,000 miles on it” and “an unexpired manufacturer's new car warranty.” (Id. at pp. 195-96.)  

On March 16, 2019, Plaintiffs leased a 2019 BMW X5 from the dealership Pacific BMW. (Def.’s Undisputed Facts (UF) 1-2.) The lease identified the vehicle as “used” with 3,201 miles on the odometer. (UF 3.) The vehicle had been used as a loaner by the dealer. (UF 4.) When the vehicle was initially sold to Pacific BMW on December 19, 2018 (Plntf.’s Additional Facts (AF) 8), it came with a manufacturer’s warranty for 50,000 miles or four years (UF 5-6). The warranty’s effective date was December 19, 2018, and its expiration date was December 19, 2022. (Foote Decl., Ex. B (Leyva Depo.) 113:10-14; Ex. C (Vehicle Statement of Facts); Ex. D (Warranty Vehicle Inquiry).)

The warranty states that “[c]overage begins on the date of first retail sale or the date the vehicle is first placed into service as a sales demonstrator, Aftersales Mobility Program (AMP) Vehicle or company vehicle, whichever is earlier.” (Bravo Decl., Ex. B.) Here, the vehicle was placed into service as a company vehicle before the first retail sale to Plaintiffs. (See UF 4.) When Plaintiffs leased the vehicle in March 2019, the only warranty attached to the vehicle was the balance of the manufacturer’s warranty. (Leyva Depo. 113:16-115:6.) Plaintiffs were given a “Buyers Guide” informing them that “MANUFACTURER’S WARRANTY STILL APPLIES. The manufacturer’s original warranty has not expired on some components of the vehicle.” (Bravo Decl., Ex. A.)

Plaintiffs do not base their claims on any warranty other than the manufacturer’s warranty. Plaintiffs argue that there is a triable issue over when the vehicle’s warranty actually began, suggesting that the vehicle may have come with the full manufacturer’s warranty when Plaintiffs leased it in March 2019. However, the facts establish that the warranty began on December 19, 2018—when Pacific BMW first purchased the vehicle and before Plaintiffs purchased it—and expired on December 19, 2022 or at 50,000 miles. The evidence cited by Plaintiffs does not raise a material dispute on this issue, i.e., does not raise an inference that the warranty began at any time other than December 19, 2018, when it was put into service by Pacific BMW as a company vehicle. (See Foote Decl., Ex. A, C.) 

Thus, Plaintiffs leased the vehicle in March 2019 with at most an “unexpired manufacturer's new car warranty.” (Rodriguez, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 196.) There is no evidence that the “the new car warranty was issued with the sale” to Plaintiffs. (Ibid.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s vehicle does not qualify as a “new vehicle” under the Song-Beverly Act. (Ibid.) Summary judgment is warranted.  

CONCLUSION

            Defendant BMW NA’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.