Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV33523, Date: 2024-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33523    Hearing Date: August 5, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On September 10, 2021, Plaintiff Matilde Rodriguez filed the instant action against BMW of North America, LLC (BMW NA) and BMW of Ontario. The complaint asserts causes of action for breach of express and implied warranties under the Song-Beverly Act and a cause of action for negligence.

            On June 18, 2024, BMW NA filed the instant motion to stay the proceedings pending the California Supreme Court review of the appellate decision in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209. Plaintiff filed her opposition on July 24, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Courts have inherent authority to control their own calendars and dockets . . . .” (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 267.) This includes “the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) “The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1332(c).)

DISCUSSION

I. The Rodriguez Case 

In Rodriguez, the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of FCA on claims brought under the Song-Beverly Act, holding that the Act’s refund-or-replace provision, which applies to a “new motor vehicle,” only applies to vehicles that have not previously been sold. (Rodriguez, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 209.) This may include “previously driven but not previously sold vehicles, such as a demonstrator or loaner, where the warranty was issued with the sale.” (Ibid.) But the court held that the provision does not apply to “previously owned vehicles with a balance remaining on the manufacturer's express warranty.” (Ibid.) The vehicle in Rodriguez was not covered under the definition of “new motor vehicle” because it was purchased from a used car dealership and had at least one prior consumer owner. 

            The plaintiffs in Rodriguez had argued that a “new motor vehicle” includes any vehicle sold with a balance remaining on the warranty because the definition includes “other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer's new car warranty.” (Rodriguez, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at pp. 219-20.) The court rejected this construction based on the context of the entire statute. (Ibid.) Specifically, the Act defines “new motor vehicle” to include “a dealer-owned vehicle and demonstrator,” which is a narrow class of vehicles that have been “used” in the literal sense but are nonetheless treated as new because they are sold with the same manufacturer’s warranty that accompanies new cars. (Id. at p. 220.) The court held that the catchall phrase “other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer's new car warranty” similarly refers to “vehicles that have never been previously sold to a consumer and come with full express warranties.” (Ibid.)

II. Whether a Stay is Warranted in This Case

BMW NA seeks a stay, contending that if the Supreme Court affirms Rodriguez, Plaintiff’s claims will necessarily fail. Plaintiff argues that it is immaterial whether the Act covers a used vehicle sold with a balance on the warranty because her claims are not based on the balance of a prior existing warranty, but on an independent Certified Pre-Owned warranty specifically issued with her purchase. (See Rodriguez Decl., Ex. A.) Plaintiff argues that even under Rodriguez, a manufacturer is liable for the warranty on a used good if “the manufacturer issues a new warranty along with the sale of the used good.” (Rodriguez, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 218.)

            When Plaintiff purchased the vehicle, she received a document titled “Vehicle Warranty/Maintenance Status” document stating: “Certified Pre-Owned – Limited Warranty extended for an additional 1 year.” (Rodriguez Decl., Ex. A.) BMW NA acknowledges that it is the warrantor of the Certified Pre-owned warranty. (Mtn. 1:9-10.) Because the Certified Pre-Owned warranty was expressly extended in connection with the specific sale to Plaintiff, Plaintiff is not merely relying on the balance of an existing warranty.   

In Kiluk v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 334, 337, Mercedes-Benz similarly “issued a certified preowned warranty that would last for one year from the end of the new car warranty.” The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s finding that “the Song-Beverly Act applied to the used car warranty issued by Mercedes Benz.” (Id. at pp. 338-41.) Similarly, BMW NA issued a Certified Pre-Owned warranty with Plaintiff’s used car purchase. Because there is a basis for liability against BMW NA apart from Rodriguez, a stay pending the outcome in Rodriguez is unwarranted.

CONCLUSION

            BMW NA’s motion to stay is DENIED.