Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24BBCV00180, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24BBCV00180    Hearing Date: May 3, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Jairo L. Estrada (“Plaintiff”) allege that on January 17, 2023, Plaintiff entered into a warranty contact with Defendant Ford Motor Company (“FMC”) regarding a 2022 Ford Explorer vehicle.  Plaintiff alleges that the warranty contract contained various warranties, including but not limited to the bumper-bumper warranty, powertrain warranty, emission warranty, etc.  Plaintiff alleges that the defects and nonconformities to the warranty manifested themselves during the applicable warranty period, including but not limited to, transmission defects and infotainment defects, among other defects and non-conformities.  Plaintiff alleges that FMC failed to promptly replace the vehicle or make restitution. 

Plaintiff alleges that he delivered the vehicle to Defendant Envision Ford Lincoln of Duarte (“Envision”) for substantial repair on at least one occasion, but Envision failed to use ordinary care and skill to properly store, prepare, and repair the subject vehicle. 

The complaint, filed January 22, 2024, alleges causes of action for: (1) violation of Civil Code, § 1793.2(D); (2) violation of Civil Code, § 1793.2(B); (3) violation of Civil Code, § 1793.2(A)(3); (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (Civil Code, §§ 1791.1, 1794, and 1795.5); (5) negligent repair; and (6) fraudulent inducement – concealment.

B.     Demurrer on Calendar

On February 26, 2024, Defendants Ford Motor Company (“FMC”) and Envision Ford of Duarte (“Envision”) filed a demurrer to the complaint. 

On April 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief.

On April 26, 2024, Defendants filed a reply brief.

DISCLOSURE

John Kralik was an associate of the Law Firm of Hughes Hubbard & Reed from 1979-1987 and a partner in Hughes Hubbard & Reed from 1988-1993. During that time he worked on Ford Motor Company matters, principally on products liability cases from 1976 (when he was a summer associate) until 1987. Ford was a major client during his partnership with the firm, and so some portion of his partner draw would have originated with Ford. The Court does not feel that it is biased in this matter as the result of this long-ago legal representation but recognizes that the parties may have a different perception. If any party feels that the Court’s prior work at Hughes Hubbard creates an appearance of bias, please file an appropriate request for the Court to recuse prior to the next hearing in this matter. It is not necessary to file a peremptory challenge under CCP 170.6.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The parties are ordered to attend the hearing.  Prior to the hearing, counsel should discuss with their clients whether they would like this case to proceed in this Department.  If the parties have objections, they should be raised at the hearing so that the Court may take appropriate steps to recuse itself from the action and transfer the case.

If the parties are willing to waive these issues, then the Court will continue the hearing on the demurrer to the complaint to May 31, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.  No further briefing will be permitted on the motion.

Defendants shall provide notice of this order. 

DATED: May 3, 2024                                                                        ___________________________

                                                                                          John Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court