Judge Jon R. Takasugi, Case 21STCV05411 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

On 2/10/2021, Plaintiffs Vincent and Pete Ybarra (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against General Motors, LLC (Defendant), alleging breach of statutory obligations under the Song-Beverly Act.

Defendants argues that Plaintiffs cannot establish their express warranty claims because they did not purchase a “new motor vehicle” or otherwise receive any new or additional warranty coverage from GM in connection with their used vehicle purchase. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot establish their implied warranty claim because they bought the vehicle used. Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ second and third causes of action fail for the independent reason that Plaintiffs do not have any evidence to substantiate the alleged violations.[1]

To show that Plaintiffs’ express warranty claims (COAs 1-4) fail as a matter of law, Defendants cite a case unanimously affirmed by the Court of Appeal from earlier this year, Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC, No. E073766, 77 Cal.App.5th 209, review granted July 13, 2022.

There, the plaintiffs bought a used Chrysler-brand 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.

Here, Plaintiffs, like the plaintiffs in Rodriguez, did not buy a “new motor vehicle” from a GM-authorized dealership; they bought the Acadia used from Enterprise Car Sales, which is not a GM-authorized retailer. Plaintiffs here, like the plaintiffs in Rodriguez, did not receive any new or additional warranty coverage for the Acadia from GM; they received only the balance of coverage remaining under the Warranty that GM issued in connection with the Acadia’s delivery to its original owner back in January 2013. These undisputed facts show that Plaintiffs did not buy a “new motor vehicle” or receive a “new car warranty” from GM. Thus, under Rodriguez, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs cannot pursue a breach of express warranty claims against GM under Song-Beverly:

Having examined the statutory provision, its place within the [Song Beverly] Act as a whole, and its legislative history, we conclude the phrase “other motor vehicles sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty” refers to cars sold with a full warranty, not to previously sold cars accompanied by some balance of the original warranty. We therefore conclude the trial judge was correct to conclude Plaintiff’s truck does not meet the definition of a “new motor vehicle” and to dismiss their claim against FCA as a result.

As for the implied warranty claim, the Court agrees that Plaintiff 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].)

Because Plaintiffs bought the Acadia used and have “no evidence that [GM] was a distributor or retail seller of [the used Acadia] or in any way acted as such,” Plaintiffs’ breach of implied warranty claim fails as a matter of law. (Id.)

Plaintiffs did not oppose this motion, and thus have not met their burden to disclose a triable issue of any material fact.

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.

[1] Given the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred as a matter of law, the Court does not reach the question of whether or not these causes of action fail independently for lack of evidence.