Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 24SMCV02577, Date: 2024-09-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV02577, Date: 2024-09-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV02577 Hearing Date: September 24, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Manasyan v. American Honda Motor Co., Case no. 24 SMCV02577

Hearing date September 24, 2024

Defendant American Honda Motor’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff Manasyan sues defendant American Honda Motor (AHM) alleging a Song-Beverly claim. AHM demurs.

Plaintiff purchased a used 2020 Honda Civic and alleges the vehicle, when initially sold, came with a 36 month/36,000 mile warranty from AHM. When plaintiff purchased the vehicle, it was less than 36 months from the initial sale, and the vehicle had 32,747 miles. Plaintiff alleges coverage under the balance of the warranty. Plaintiff further alleges they delivered the vehicle to an authorized AHM repair facility, which was unable to make the vehicle conform with the warranty.

“The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law.” Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1420. A complaint “is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts” Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550, but plaintiff must set forth the essential facts of the case “with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint [the] defendant with the nature, source and extent” of the plaintiff’s claim. Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099. In reviewing the legal sufficiency of a complaint against a demurrer, a court will treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; C & H Foods Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 1055, 1062.

Defendant AHM argues the vehicle does not qualify as a new motor vehicle under the SBA. “‘New motor vehicle’ includes the chassis, chassis cab, and that portion of a motor home devoted to its propulsion, but does not include any portion designed, used, or maintained primarily for human habitation, a dealer-owned vehicle and a “demonstrator” or other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty…”. Civ. Code §1793.22(e)(2).

Defendant cites Rodriguez, et al. v. FCA US LLC (2022) No. E073766, WL 1042907 at *1, arguing that “previously owned vehicles with some balance remaining on the manufacturer’s express warranty” do not qualify as a new motor vehicle under the Song-Beverly Act. Id. Rodriguez is not binding, as the Supreme Court granted review; although it may be cited for its persuasive value, it also establishes the existence of a conflict in authority, and pursuant to Auto Equity Sales, Inc., v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456 trial courts have discretion to choose between sides of any such conflict.

Plaintiff argues, and the court agrees that, for purposes of pleading on demurrer, the vehicle falls under the definition of a “new vehicle” per Jensen v. BMW North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112 (holding that “cars sold with a balance remaining on the manufacturer’s new motor vehicle warranty” are included within the Song-Beverly Act’s definition of new motor vehicle).

The elements of the cause of action are (1) an express warranty to repair defects given in connection with the sale of goods; (2) existence of a defect covered by the warranty; (3) buyer’s notice to the seller of such a defect within a reasonable time after its discovery; (4) seller’s failure to repair the defect in compliance with the warranty; and (5) resulting damages. Orichian v. BMW of North America, LLC (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1333-1334.

Plaintiff alleges the vehicle was originally sold with a warranty. Compl. para. 8. Plaintiff alleges they entered into a warranty contract with defendant when plaintiff purchased the vehicle. Compl. para. 16. Plaintiff alleges defects and nonconformities appeared within the warranty period. Compl. para. 17. Plaintiff alleges delivery of the vehicle to a defendant-authorized repair shop that was unable to repair the defects. Compl. para. 18-19. Plaintiff alleges defendant failed to make restitution under the warranty, resulting in damages. Compl. paras. 20, 23.

On demurrer, the court must accept all factual allegations as true. Plaintiff has pled allegations sufficient to establish the elements of an SBA breach of express warranty cause of action. OVERRULED. Defendant to answer within 15 court days.