Judge: Glenn R. Salter, Case: 20-1171327, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Summary Judgment (Defendant Hyundai)

The motion of defendant Hyundai Motor America for summary judgment on the first cause of action for express warranty and on the second cause of action for implied warranty is GRANTED.

First, the court finds that plaintiff’s claims are not barred by the class action settlement in Mendoza v. Hyundai Motor America.  There is a public policy against the waiver of any rights under the Song-Beverly Act.  (See Rheinhart v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1016.)  Here, the plaintiff has presented evidence she timely opted out of the class action settlement.

The first cause of action alleges breach of the express warranty for defendant’s failure to promptly repurchase or replace the vehicle after a reasonable number of repair attempts.

The statute clearly requires the defendant be afforded more than one attempt to repair the vehicle.  (See Silvio v. Ford Motor Co. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1208.)  A defendant must be allowed a “reasonable number of attempts” to repair the vehicle before a breach of the express warranty can be found.

The court has reviewed the repair history of the vehicle for the five-year warranty period from May 14, 2013, to May 14, 2018.  It also notes the claim that the warranty expired November 17, 2016, when the vehicle was brought in with an odometer reading over 60,000 miles.

It does not appear that plaintiff presented the vehicle for repair of any defects prior to the expiration of the express warranty period.  Moreover, it appears the repair facility always repaired the vehicle, and no one defect was presented multiple times.  Finally, plaintiff does not present any evidence that would create a triable issue of material fact as to these claims.

The second cause of action alleges a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.  The evidence indicates that plaintiff drove the vehicle for 81,809 miles without a single complaint.  And when she sought a repurchase, the plaintiff had driven the vehicle for 122,428 miles over a period of seven years.

Defendant’s expert opined that plaintiff’s vehicle was fit for the ordinary purpose and was of the same quality as those generally accepted in the trade.  The plaintiff did not present any evidence to the contrary that would create a triable issue of material fact.

Motion for Summary Judgment (Plaintiff)

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment as to defendant’s

affirmative defenses Nos. 1-38, 41, and 43 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(1).

The court finds the motion timely as the trial date has been continued.

The motion is GRANTED as to affirmative defenses Nos. 1 (failure to state a claim), 23 (lack of privity), 27 (vehicle purchased outside California), 29 (failure to join indispensable party), and 35 (failure to allege causes of action with sufficient particularity).  It is DENIED as to the others.

Defendant’s answer to the first amended complaint contains 43 affirmative defenses.  Some of them are pure nonsense and would never have been filed by careful counsel.  For example, it is undisputed that the vehicle was purchased in California, yet affirmative defense No. 27 alleges, without any facts, that the vehicle was purchased outside California (and therefore not entitled to the benefits of California’s Lemon Law).

Similarly, most of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to the affirmative defenses complains about defenses that are clearly relevant and supported by facts.

Notice

The defendant shall give notice.