Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 25STCV01967, Date: 2025-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV01967    Hearing Date: March 28, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

DEPARTMENT 17

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

MICHELLE R. BABBAGE, et al.

 

         vs.

 

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, et al. 

 

 Case No.:  25STCV01967

 

 

 

 Hearing Date:  March 28, 2025

 

GM’s demurrer is SUSTAINED, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action. GM’s demurrer is OVERRULED as to the fifth cause of action.

 

On 1/24/2025, Plaintiff David N. Babbage II and Michelle R. Babbage (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against General Motors, LLC (GM) and Westrup-Sadler, Inc. (collectively, Defendant), alleging violation of the Song-Beverly Act.

 

            On 2/26/2025, GM demurred to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

 

Discussion 

 

            GM argues that Plaintiffs’ first, second, third, and fourth causes of action are time-barred. GM argues that Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action fails as a matter of law.

 

Effective 1/1/2025, any “action covered by [Code of Civil Procedure] Section 871.20,” which includes any “action seeking restitution or replacement of a motor vehicle pursuant to subdivision) or (d) of [Civil Code] Section 1793.2,” “shall not be brought later than six years after the date of original delivery of the motor vehicle.” (CCP § 871.21(b))

 

            Plaintiffs allege they purchased the Subject Vehicle on or about 2/13/2017. (See Complaint, ¶¶ 7, 10.)

 

Section 871.21 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for only three circumstances in which the six-year statute of repose “shall be tolled”:

 

(1) As provided by tolling requirements prescribed in subdivision (c) of Section 1793.22 of the Civil Code, as applicable.

 

(2) For the time the motor vehicle is out of service by reason of repair for any nonconformity.

 

 (3) For the time period after a pre-suit notice is provided to the manufacturer in accordance with [Code of Civil Procedure] Section 871.24, which time period shall not exceed 60 days.

 

            Here, Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not include any facts as to tolling, nor does it allege any of these three circumstances are satisfied here. As such, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs’ claims appear to be time-barred. In opposition, Plaintiff concedes that the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action are time-barred, and agrees to dismiss them.

 

            As for the fifth cause of action, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act  (MMWA) authorizes a civil suit by a consumer to enforce the terms of a warranty based on the specific warranty law of the state where the action arises.  Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action fails because Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for a Song-Beverly violation. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Courts have repeatedly held that MMWA claims may be based on any valid state-law breach of warranty claim, including those arising under the Commercial Code regardless of the SBA, citing Dagher v. Ford Motor Co (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 905.

 

            After review, the Court finds an insufficient basis to conclude at the pleading stage that Plaintiff is barred from pursuing a MMWA claim. Defendant did not file a reply responding to Plaintiff’s argument. In overruling the demurrer, the Court is not making a determination that this claim is viable.

 

            Based on the foregoing, GM’s demurrer is sustained, without leave to amend as to the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action. GM’s demurrer is overruled as to the fifth cause of action.

 

It is so ordered.

 

Dated:  March    , 2025

                                                                                                                                                          

   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.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.