Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 22STCV06972, Date: 2023-09-06 Tentative Ruling

This action arises from the lease of an allegedly defective vehicle (the “Vehicle”) which was manufactured by Moving Defendant. Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty; (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of implied warranty; (3) violation of Song-Beverly Act – Section 1793.2; and (4) negligent repair.

In relevant part, the Complaint alleges: Plaintiff leased the Vehicle on or about November 1, 2019 from one of Moving Defendant’s authorized dealers. (Complaint ¶ 9.) The Complaint alleges that the Vehicle came with Moving Defendant’s new car warranty. (Complaint ¶ 8.)

On June 27, 2023, Moving Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (the “Motion”) on the ground that the Complaint fails to state sufficient facts to constitute the first through third causes of action.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 438, subdivision (c)(1)(B), a defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings if the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (CCP § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B).) The standard for granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer. (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064.) The court must assume the truth of all factual allegations in the complaint, along with matters subject to judicial notice. (Wise v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th. 725, 738.) The court must view the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. (Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 15, 28.)

A statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings may not be made if a pretrial conference order has been entered pursuant to CCP section 575, or within 30 days of the date the action is initially set for trial, whichever is later, unless the court otherwise permits. (CCP § 438, subd. (e).) A common law motion for judgment on the pleadings is not subject to the same time limitation as its statutory counterpart and may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself. (See Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.) Such motion may be made on the same grounds as those supporting a general demurrer, i.e., that the pleading at issue fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a legally cognizable claim or defense. (Id.)

Moving Defendant argues that the Complaint fails to allege any breach of warranty claims because the Vehicle does not qualify as a “new vehicle” under the Song-Beverly Act pursuant to Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209 (“Rodriguez”) and Nunez v. FCA US LLC (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 385.

Moving Defendant presents outside evidence of the lease agreement (the “Lease”) entered into between Plaintiff and the Vehicle’s dealer. Aside from the evidence being improperly offered to challenge the sufficiency of the Complaint’s allegations, the Court additionally notes that the Motion’s arguments regarding the Vehicle’s status as a “used” car would require the Court to adopt Moving Defendant’s interpretation of the Lease without regard to the actual ownership history of the Vehicle. (See Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 1000.)[1] The Court finds that the Complaint sufficiently alleges that the Vehicle was a new car the lease of which came with Moving Defendant’s new car warranty. The Court therefore DENIES the Motion.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

[1] Furthermore, in general, Song-Beverly Act cases involving used (or potentially used) cars are being stayed pending the California Supreme Court’s determination of the pending appeal in Rodriguez in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC, S274625.