Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: BC71490720STCV39, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC71490720STCV39    Hearing Date: October 27, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

            On 10/13/2020, Plaintiff Yen Lieu filed suit against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Defendant), alleging three violations of the Song-Beverly Act and fraudulent inducement-concealment.

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

Discussion

            As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff has since dismissed his third and fourth causes of action. Accordingly, this motion is moot as to those causes of action, and the Court limits its analysis to the first and second claims for express and implied breach of warranty.

I.                   Express Warranty

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s breach of express warranty fails as a matter of law because the transmission Plaintiff alleges to be defective was not the transmission in Plaintiff’s vehicle, and no nonconformity occurring during the warranty period required more than a reasonable number of repair attempts.

In support, Defendant submitted evidence that:

-         On January 18, 2018, Plaintiff purchased a new 2018 Honda Odyssey from Diamond Honda in City of Industry, California and received the basic 3-year/36,000-mile limited warranty and a 5-year/60,000-mile powertrain limited warranty. (UMF No. 1.) The Subject Vehicle’s express warranties began on January 18, 2018. (UMF No. 11.)

-         Based on the Warranty History of the Subject Vehicle and the repair records for the Subject Vehicle, there were four occasions when Plaintiffs presented the Subject Vehicle to a repair facility for a concern that was paid for under an AHM warranty: September 10, 2019; November 7, 2019; January 23, 2020; and August 21, 2020.

-         On September 10, 2019, with approximately 19,642 miles on the odometer Honda El Monte test drove the Subject Vehicle and found no issues with the transmission, the display audio unit software was updated, and a power sliding door laches safety recall campaign was performed under the Subject Vehicle’s under the warranty. (UMF Nos. 13-14.) The vehicle was at the repair facility for one day. (UMF No. 16.)

-         On November 7, 2019, with approximately 21,382 miles on the odometer the Honda El Monte shop foreman test drove the Subject Vehicle for 18 miles and determined that the transmission was shifting as designed and did not display any abnormal symptoms, determined that the sliding doors were operating as designed, and ordered a left front weatherstrip, all under the warranty. (UMF Nos. 17-18.) The vehicle was at the repair facility for one day. (UMF No. 20.)

-         On January 23, 2020, with approximately 23,478 miles on the odometer, El Monte Honda test drove the Subject Vehicle and did not duplicate Plaintiff’s transmission or acceleration concerns; replaced both the left and right sliding door rear latches in accordance with the power sliding door laches safety recall campaign; and replaced the front door weatherstrip under the warranty. (UMF Nos. 22-24.) The vehicle was at the repair facility for two days. (UMF No. 24.)

-         On August 21, 2020, with approximately 27,349 miles on the odometer, Car Pros El Monte Honda performed several safety recall and service action campaigns under warranty. The vehicle was at the repair facility for one day. (UMF Nos. 25-28.)

-         While the Subject Vehicle was presented for other concerns (such as routine oil changes and other services), none of those concerns were for services or repairs that were covered under a AHM warranty. (UMF No. 29.) The service history of the Subject Vehicle also shows additional recalls and service action campaigns being performed on the Subject Vehicle. These recalls and service action campaigns were performed as continuous product improvement measures on the Subject Vehicle and not due to any concerns raised by Plaintiff or anyone else on her behalf. (UMF No. 30.)

-         The Subject Vehicle came equipped with a 9-speed automatic transmission that was mechanically different from the 5-speed and 6-speed automatic transmissions equipped in the 2011–2017 Honda Odyssey vehicles. (UMF No. 31.) The Honda technical service bulletins cited in Plaintiffs’ Complaint ¶¶ 33 – 35 regarding a “Judder from the Torque Converter Lock-up Clutch” apply only to 2011–2017 Honda Odyssey vehicles equipped with 6-speed automatic transmissions. They do not apply to 2018 Honda Odyssey vehicles equipped with 9-speed automatic transmissions, including the Subject Vehicle. (UMF No. 32.) The Subject Vehicle did not experience the torque converter fluid degradation condition experience by some 2011–2017 Honda Odyssey vehicles. (UMF No. 33.)

Defendant’s evidence supports a reasonable inference that the transmission Plaintiff alleges to be defective was not the transmission in the Subject Vehicle, and that no nonconformity occurring during the warranty period required more than a reasonable number of repair attempts. As a result, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to disclose a triable issue of fact.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that she need not allege her express warranty claim with specificity and so it is immaterial that the transmission alleged in the Complaint was not the transmission in the Subject Vehicle.

Moreover, while Plaintiff does not dispute Defendant’s timeline of repairs, Plaintiff argues that “it is a disputed issue of material fact as to whether there were nonconformities present in the Subject Vehicle covered by the express warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle. The dealership being unable to verify the problem, does not mean that there were no problems that existed. Defendant does not provide any expert opinion and only provides the unauthenticated repair orders to support the claim that the transmission problem did not exist at the time Plaintiff presented her vehicle for repairs.” (Motion, 4: 4-9.) In support, Plaintiff submitted testimony from Plaintiff and her husband that the issue with the transmission was present on every occasion leading up to her visits to the dealership for repairs. (Plaintiff’s AMF ¶ 4; Mohrman Decl ¶ 19, Ex. 13; 106:20-24; 107:13-22)

However, Plaintiff’s claims are bound by the four corners of the Complaint. It is telling that Plaintiff does not cite any support for the contention that Plaintiff can advance claims based on defects not alleged in the Complaint. Moreover, Plaintiff argues that the fact that Defendant could not reproduce the defect does not mean that the defect did not exist. However, this ignores the fact that only if a manufacturer fails to conform the goods after a reasonable number of repair attempts does the manufacturer then become obligated to replace or repurchase the goods. If Defendant was unable to detect or reproduce the defect—as demonstrated by the repair orders—the need to conform the goods or replace or repurchase the goods could not be triggered. Thus, even assuming there was a triable issue of material fact as to whether or not there was, in fact, a defect, Plaintiff has not submitted evidence which could show that Defendant was aware of this such that its obligations under the express warranty were triggered.     

II.               Implied Warranty

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s breach of implied warranty fails as a matter of law because no defect or nonconformity existed during the one-year implied warranty period. In support, Defendant cites CCP §1791.1(c) which provides: “The duration of the implied warranty of merchantability and where present the implied warranty of fitness shall be coextensive in duration with an express warranty which accompanies the consumer goods, provided the duration of the express warranty is reasonable; but in no event shall such implied warranty have a duration of less than 60 days nor more than one year following the sale of new consumer goods to a retail buyer. Where no duration for an express warranty is stated with respect to consumer goods, or parts thereof, the duration of the implied warranty shall be the maximum period prescribed above.” (emphasis added].)

Plaintiff purchased the Subject Vehicle on January 18, 2018. (UMF ¶ 34.) In the one year that followed, Plaintiff did not present the Subject Vehicle to an authorized AHM repair facility for any concern that was paid for under an AHM warranty. (UMF ¶ 36.)

As such, Defendant’s evidence supports a reasonable inference that Plaintiff’s claim fails because Plaintiff has produced no evidence that a defect or nonconformity in the Subject Vehicle existed between January 18, 2018, and January 18, 2019. Accordingly, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to disclose a triable issue of material fact.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that in order to state a claim based on implied warranty, the defect does not have to manifest within the first year, it simply has to exist in the vehicle. In support, Plaintiff cites Daniel v. Ford Motor Co. (9th Cir. 2015) 806 F.3d 1217, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision granting summary judgment as to an implied warranty claim. The Ninth Circuit quoted Mexia, stating that “[t]here is nothing that suggests a requirement that the purchaser discover and report to the seller a latent defect within that time period [of one year].” (Id. at  p. 1222.) Other Courts have reached the same conclusion:  “[A]lthough a defect may not be discovered for months or years after a sale, merchantability is evaluated as if the defect were known” during the implied warranty period. Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., 174 Cal. App. 4th at 1306. “That a defect first appears after a warranty has expired does not necessarily mean the defect did not exist when the product was purchased.” (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 149; Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297.)

However, Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to show that the defect existed within the first year, but did not manifest until later. Moreover, as set forth above, Plaintiff has not submitted evidence that supports a reasonable inference that Defendant’s obligations were triggered under the Song-Beverly Act. 

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

It is so ordered.

Dated:  October    , 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.