Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 22STCV02980, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling,
please email the clerk at SMCdept26@lacourt.org (and “cc” all
other parties in the same email) no later than 7:30 am on
the day of the hearing, and please notify all other parties in advance that you
will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the
subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and
the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the
tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may
nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the Court may
decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.
2.
For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in
advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to
either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its
discretion.
3. PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS
EMAIL (SMCdept26@lacourt.org) FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE
RULING. The Court will not read or
respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
4. IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT
PHYSICAL DISTANCING GOING FORWARD AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY
ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY FOR NON-TRIAL
AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS. Thus, until further
notice, Department 26 strongly encourages telephonic appearances for motion
hearings that do not require the presentation of live testimony.
Case Number: 22STCV02980 Hearing Date: December 14, 2023 Dept: 26
|
alejandro
arroyo salgado, Plaintiff, v. general motors
LLC; et
al.,
Defendants. |
Case No.: 22STCV02980 Hearing Date: December 14, 2023 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: Defendant’s motion to stay |
Background
On January 25, 2022, Plaintiff Alejandro
Arroyo Salgado (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendant General
Motors LLC (“Defendant”) arising out of Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2020
Chevrolet Trax (“Subject Vehicle”). The
complaint asserts two causes of action for (1) Violation of the Song-Beverly
Act – Breach of Express Warranty and (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach
of Implied Warranty.
On April 10, 2023, Defendant filed
the instant motion to stay the action pending the California Supreme Court’s
review of Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC, Figueroa v. FCA US LLC, and Williams
v. FCA US LLC. On December 1, 2023, Plaintiff
filed an opposition. On December 6,
2023, Defendant filed a reply.
Legal Standard
“Trial courts generally have 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.) Moreover, “trial courts have inherent power
to stay trials awaiting final appellate resolution of related actions that
might conclusively determine all or some of the issues in the stayed
action.” (Koch-Ash v. Superior Court (1986)
180 Cal.App.3d 689, 696.)
Discussion
Defendant seeks a stay of the
instant action pending the California Supreme Court’s review of Niedermeier
v. FCA US LLC, Figueroa v. FCA US LLC, and Williams v. FCA US LLC.
In Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC
(2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 1052, the “Plaintiff purchased a new Jeep Wrangler in
January 2011 for approximately $40,000. Over the several years she owned the
vehicle, plaintiff experienced numerous problems with it and brought it in for
repair multiple times. [¶] Around April 2015, plaintiff requested that
defendant, the Jeep's manufacturer, buy back the vehicle. Defendant did not do
so. Plaintiff then traded in the vehicle to a GMC dealership, in exchange for
which she received $19,000 off the purchase price of a GMC Yukon.” (Id. at pp.1061-1062.)
In October 2016, the plaintiff filed
a lawsuit for breach of express and implied warranty for a Jeep Wrangler under
the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
(Id. at p.1062.) “The jury
found in favor of plaintiff on her cause of action for breach of express
warranty. The jury awarded damages of $39,584.43, which included $39,799 for
the purchase price of the Jeep plus certain specified charges, taxes, and fees;
$5,000 in incidental and consequential damages; and a deduction of $5,214.57
reflecting the use plaintiff obtained from the vehicle before first bringing it
in for repairs. The jury also awarded a civil penalty of $59,376.65,
one-and-a-half times the damages award, for a total award of $98,961.08.” (Id. at p.1062.)
After the trial, the defendant moved
to reduce the damages by $19,000.00 to reflect the trade in value that the
plaintiff received, which the trial court denied. (Id. at p.1063.) The Second District Court of Appeal, Division
1, reversed – in part – finding that the damages had to be reduced by the
amount plaintiff received for trading in the vehicle. (Id. at pp.1070-1078.)
In Figueroa v. FCA US, LLC
(2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 708, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 6,
disagreed with Niedermeier and noted that the restitution under the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act could not be off-set by “the cash received
by the vehicle owner on sale of the vehicle or the vehicle's trade-in value.” (Id. at p.714.) Similarly, in Williams v. FCA US LLC
(2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 765, the Third District Court of Appeal, agreed with the
reasoning in Figueroa and disagreed with Niedermeier.
The California Supreme Court has
granted review of all three cases with the decisions in Figueroa and Williams
being deferred pending resolution of Supreme Court’s review of Niedermeier. (Niedermeier v. FCA US (Cal. 2021) 274
Cal.Rptr.3d 598; Figueroa v. FCA US (Cal. 2023) 304 Cal.Rptr.3d 83; Williams
v. FCA US (Cal. 2023) 307 Cal.Rptr.3d 588.)
Per the Supreme Court’s docket, as of December 5, 2023, Niedermeier
has been argued and submitted.
Here, in the instant action, Plaintiff
is no longer in possession of the Subject Vehicle as it was repossessed on
March 9, 2022. (Thomas 5/22/23 Decl. ¶
2.) On May 3, 2022, Plaintiff received from
US Bank an “Explanation of Calculation of Surplus or Deficiency” stating that
the Subject Vehicle was sold after repossession or voluntary surrender and that
after sale of the Subject Vehicle on April 6, 2022, a deficiency of $8,093.72
remained. (Thomas 12/1/23 Decl. ¶ 8,
Exh. A.) Thus, the Subject Vehicle has been
sold and though Plaintiff still owes an amount under the loan, Plaintiff has
received value in the reduction of the loan owned. Accordingly, whether an offset is appropriate
under any circumstance for purposes of restitution under the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act is highly relevant.
In light of the fact that the Supreme Court has not only granted review
of this issue but will be issuing a ruling soon on this issue, a stay is
appropriate.
Accordingly, the Defendant’s motion
to stay is GRANTED.
CONCLUSIONS AND
ORDER
Based on the forgoing, Defendant General
Motors LLC’s motion to stay is GRANTED.
The instant action is stayed pending the Supreme Court’s ruling in Niedermeier
v. FCA US No. S266034.
An OSC: Re Status of Niedermeier v. FCA
US No. S266034 is set for February 29, 2024 at 8:30 am.
The Trial Setting Conference is CONTINUED
to February 29, 2024 at 8:30 am.
If the Supreme Court issues its ruling in Niedermeier
v. FCA US No. S266034 more than 20 days prior to February 29, 2024, the
parties are to file and serve a stipulation and proposed order within two weeks
of the Supreme Court ruling to advance the status conference and trial setting conference.
Moving Party is ordered to provide notice
of this order and file proof of service of such.
DATED:
December ___, 2023 ___________________________
Elaine
Lu
Judge
of the Superior Court