Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV30170, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30170    Hearing Date: September 6, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT
17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’
motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

            On
8/16/2021, Plaintiffs Berenice Lopez Hernandez aka Berenice Lopez-Hernandez and
Noel Aguilar Aguirre and Noel Aguilar-Aguirre (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed
suit against Defendants W&B Automotive, Inc dba Bravo Chrysler Dodge Keep
Ram of Alhambra and FCA US, LLC (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1)
breach of express warranty; (2) breach of implied warranty; and (3) negligent
repair.

            On
7/20/2022, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings
(MJOP).

            Now,
Plaintiffs move for reconsideration of the Court’s MJOP ruling.

Discussion

              Plaintiffs argue that the Court should
reconsider its ruling on the MJOP because on 7/13/2022, the California Supreme
Court granted a petition for review of Rodriguez v. FCA (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th
209. Plaintiffs argue that this constitutes a material change in law which
supports reconsideration.

            The
Court disagrees.

            As
Plaintiffs themselves note, the fact that the California Supreme Court grants a
petition for review of a case does not make a lower court’s reliance on the
holding of that case improper. Rather, it means that the holding is to be
treated as persuasive, rather than binding authority, pending review by the
California Supreme Court.

            Here,
the Court’s prior ruling makes clear that it did not believe its decision was
compelled by Rodriguez. Rather, the Court found Rodriguez to be
persuasive given its analogous facts.  By
contrast, to be materially distinguishable:

In
opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should refrain from retroactively
applying Rodriguez v. FCA (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209 and follow Jensen
v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112 instead. However,
in Jensen, the subject vehicle was a “demonstrator” BMW with only 7,000
miles on the odometer, and was leased directly from a BMW dealership, wherein
the dealership advised the plaintiff she would receive an additional warranty
from the manufacturer of 36,000 miles on top of the 7,000 miles already on the
odometer and was provided a warranty booklet. Here, by contrast, Plaintiffs
purchased the vehicle used, did not purchase a demonstrator that sold directly
to an FCA dealership, and did not receive a new warranty extension by FCA at
the time (nor could they have because Plaintiffs purchased from a dealership
unaffiliated with FCA). Accordingly, the Court declines to follow Jensen rather
than Rodriguez.

            (MJOP
Ruling 7/20/2022.)

It is also
worth noting that, in reaching its ruling, the Court did not rely exclusively
on Rodriguez for support. Indeed, the ruling cites several other cases
including Kiluk v. Mercedes-Benz, LLC (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 334, 339 and
Dagher v. Ford Motor Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 905, 921.

            While
Plaintiffs may contend that Rodriguez was incorrectly decided by the
Court of Appeal, that is for the California Supreme Court to determine. Given
that the California Supreme Court could uphold the Rodriguez ruling, it
would be premature for this Court to reconsider its ruling on the basis that Rodriguez
was decided incorrectly.

            Based
on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  September   
, 2022

   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.