Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2022-00007492-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 02, 2023

11/03/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00007492-CU-BC-CTL ASHBY VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Ford Motor Company's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. As Defendant is seeking summary adjudication only as to three of the five causes of action raised in the complaint, the proper vehicle is a motion for summary adjudication.

Defendant's Motion for Summary Adjudication is granted.

'A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.' (CCP § 437c(f)(1).) The moving party bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) If satisfied, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make his or her own prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of fact. (Id.) When a party opposing summary judgment fails to include a separate statement or the separate statement fails to unequivocally state which facts are disputed, the facts in the moving party's separate statement are deemed undisputed. (Thompson v. Ioane (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1180, 1186 n.4 (citing Carolyn v. Orange Park Community Assn. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1094).) Violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(a)(3) Defendant argues that summary adjudication of this claim should be granted because Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant failed to make service literature and replacement parts available to its authorized service and repair facilities. Defendant has satisfied its prima facie burden for this cause of action by showing that Plaintiff has produced no evidence to support this claim in his discovery responses. (UMF 10-11.) Plaintiff now has the burden to show a triable issue of fact. By failing to file an opposition, Plaintiff has not satisfied his prima facie burden. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to summary adjudication of this claim.

Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability Defendant argues that summary adjudication of this claim should be granted because it is time barred.

'The statute of limitations for breaches of the implied warranty of merchantability is four years.' (Montoya v. Ford Motor Company (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 493, 495.) Defendant satisfied its prima facie burden by showing that Plaintiff purchased the vehicle on January 17, 2017 and filed the instant lawsuit on February 25, 2022. (UMF 1, 2.) Plaintiff now has the burden to show a triable issue of fact. By failing to file an opposition, Plaintiff has not satisfied his prima facie burden. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to summary adjudication of this claim.

Negligent Repair Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3017811  4 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ASHBY VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY [IMAGED]  37-2022-00007492-CU-BC-CTL Defendant argues that summary adjudication of this claim should be granted because it is barred by the economic loss rule. 'Simply stated, the economic loss rule provides: Where a purchaser's expectations in a sale are frustrated because the product he bought is not working properly, his remedy is said to be in contract alone, for he has suffered only economic losses.' (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988 (quotation marks and alterations omitted).) 'The economic loss rule requires a purchaser to recover in contract for purely economic loss due to disappointed expectations, unless he can demonstrate harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise.' (Id.) Defendant has satisfied its prima facie burden for this cause of action by showing that Plaintiff's alleged damages are limited to damages to the vehicle purportedly covered by the warranty contract. (UMF 4, 8-9.) Plaintiff now has the burden to show a triable issue of fact. By failing to file an opposition, Plaintiff has not satisfied his prima facie burden. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to summary adjudication of this claim.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3017811  4