Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 24STCV08087, Date: 2025-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: June 12, 2025

Case Name: Hernandez v. General Motors, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 22STCV37716

Matter: Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication

Moving Party: Defendant General Motors LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiff Mayra Hernandez 

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect.  If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

This is a lemon law matter, and this time it’s about a lease-to-buy vehicle.
GM seeks summary judgment.

The Motion for Summary Judgment is granted because Plaintiff is seeking Song-Beverly repurchase or replacement relief for a car that was purchased used after the buy-option was exercised, even if the initial lease was for a new car.  (See Rodriguez v. FCA US LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189.)

The Court rejects Plaintiff’s arguments that GM is a distributor/retailer and the dealer was GM’s agent.   (See, e.g., Avalon Painting Co. v. Alert Lumber Co. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 178, 184 [“A Ford dealer or retailer may in a layman's view be an agent of the Ford Motor Co., but he is not an agent in the legal sense of that relationship.”]; Steven Brand v. Nissan N. Am., Inc. (C.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2017) 2017 WL 11610901, at *9 [“Courts have consistently held that authorized dealers are not inherently agents of a vehicle manufacturer.”].)  The Court will not allow discovery on this and won’t allow an amendment either. 

Moving party to give notice.