Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 20STCV35171, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV35171    Hearing Date: May 23, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

On 9/14/2020, Plaintiffs Celine Cohan and RCB Corporation (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (Defendant) , alleging: (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (2) breach of express warranty; and (3) fraudulent inducement—concealment.

On 9/22/2021, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, without leave to amend, as to the third cause of action.

            Now, Defendant moves for summary judgment of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

            The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ claim fails because the Subject Vehicle was used, and the Song-Beverly Act does not apply to used vehicles.

Here, Defendant submitted evidence that Plaintiffs leased a used 2015 Mercedes-Benz C300W4 from Mercedes-Benz of Beverly Hills (SS ¶ 1.). The Subject Vehicle was leased as a “pre-owned” vehicle. (SSUF No. 3). The vehicle was not a “demonstrator” vehicle. (SSUF No. 4.) When the Subject Vehicle was leased by Plaintiffs as a used vehicle, Plaintiffs did not receive a full new vehicle warranty with the lease from MBUSA. (SS ¶¶ 11, 19.) Instead, the Subject Vehicle was only provided with the remainder of the existing new vehicle warranty that accompanied the Subject Vehicle when it was a brand-new vehicle. (Ibid.) The start of the original new vehicle warranty was September 30, 2014, nine months before Plaintiffs’ lease of the Subject Vehicle. (SS ¶¶ 1, 19.)

In Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal. App. 5th 209, 215, review filed May 17, 2022, the California Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether the phrase “other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty” covers previously-owned vehicles with some balance remaining on the manufacturer’s new vehicle warranty. The Rodriguez Court unanimously affirmed the lower court’s conclusion that it does not.

In Rodriguez, the plaintiffs bought a used Chrysler vehicle used from Pacific Auto Center, which is not a Chrysler-authorized retailer. Chrysler was not a party to the transaction between the plaintiffs and Pacific Auto Center, nor did Chrysler issue a warranty in connection with the plaintiffs’ purchase. The vehicle did, however, have unexpired coverage under the warranty that Chrysler had issued in connection with the vehicle’s sale to its original owner. (Id. at p. 209-21). Approximately one year after their purchase, the plaintiffs experienced engine issues that, according to them, Chrysler was unable to repair within a reasonable number of attempts. Based upon allegations that Chrysler had breached the warranty it issued in connection with the vehicle’s delivery to its original owner, the plaintiffs sued Chrysler asserting Song-Beverly claims. (Ibid.) Chrysler sought summary judgment on the Song-Beverly claims, arguing that Song-Beverly did not apply because (1) the vehicle, which plaintiffs bought used, was not a “new motor vehicle,” and (2) Chrysler did not issue a warranty in connection with the plaintiffs’ purchase. The trial court agreed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Chrysler:

The sole issue in this case is whether the phrase “other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer's new car warranty” covers sales of previously owned vehicles with some balance remaining on the manufacturer's express warranty. We conclude it does not and that the phrase functions instead as a catchall for sales of essentially new vehicles where the applicable warranty was issued with the sale. We therefore affirm.

As for the implied warranty claim, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs cannot establish the claim as a matter of law. Under California law, a plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action for breach of implied warranty against the vehicle’s manufacturer if the plaintiff bought the vehicle used. (See Nunez v. FCA US LLC (2021) 61 Cal. App. 5th 385, 399  [analyzing Cal. Civ. Code § 1795.5 and concluding, “It is evident from these provisions that only distributors or sellers of used goods—not manufacturers of new goods—have implied warranty obligations in the sale of used goods”] [emphasis added]; Garcia v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (Ct. App. 2018) 231 Cal. Rptr. 3d 123, 130 [noting that Song-Beverly expressly treats manufacturers and retailers as distinct entities, so a buyer cannot sue a manufacturer for the retail seller’s breach of an implied warranty].) Simply put, “only distributors and retail sellers, not manufacturers, are liable for breach of implied warranties in the sale of a used car.” (Nunez, supra, 61 Cal. App. 5th at p. 399 [emphasis added].)

Taken together, Defendant has met it burden to show that Plaintiffs cannot establish their claims as a matter of law. Plaintiffs did not oppose this motion and thus have not presented any legal authority to the contrary, nor have they met their burden to disclose a triable issue of material fact.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  May    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.