Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00838, Date: 2024-09-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22NWCV00838 Hearing Date: September 3, 2024 Dept: C
Hugo Aleman Gonzalez, et al.
vs American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
Case No.: 22NWCV00838
Hearing Date: September 3, 2024 @ 10:30 a.m.
#4
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiffs to give notice.
Background
The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed on
December 22, 2022 alleges that Plaintiffs Hugo Aleman Gonzalez and Diana Aleman
(“Plaintiffs”) purchased a new 2022 Honda Civic, VIN: 2HGFE1F94NH311281 (“the
Subject Vehicle”) from Norm Reeves Honda Superstore in Cerritos, California.
(FAC, ¶8.) Norm Reeves Honda Superstore is an authorized AMERICAN HONDA
dealership. (Id., ¶9.) AMERICAN HONDA’s authorized dealerships are its
agents for purposes of selling AMERICAN HONDA vehicles to consumers. (Id.,
¶10.) AMERICAN HONDA backed the Subject Vehicle with an express warranty. (Id., ¶11.) AMERICAN HONDA manufactured and/or
distributed vehicles throughout the United States, including the Subject
Vehicle, equipped with defective computerized driver-assistance safety systems
called “Honda Sensing”. (Id., ¶14.) The FAC alleges the following causes of
action: 1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, 2)
Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty, and 3) Fraudulent
Inducement – Concealment.
On
January 22, 2024, Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“AHM”) filed the
instant motion for summary adjudication of the Third Cause of Action for
Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment. In
that regard, the FAC alleges that AMERICAN HONDA and its agents intentionally
concealed and failed to disclose facts relating to the Honda Sensing Defect. (Id., ¶119.) AMERICAN HONDA intended to deceive
Plaintiff(s) by concealing the known issues with the Honda Sensing Defect, in
an effort to sell affected vehicles at maximum price. (Id.,
¶123.) AMERICAN HONDA fraudulently induced Plaintiff(s) to purchase the
Subject Vehicle they would not have purchased but for AMERICAN HONDA’s
concealment of the Honda Sensing Defect. (Id., ¶124.)
AHM
moves for summary adjudication on the following grounds: 1) the Third Cause of
Action is preempted by federal law, 2) Plaintiffs cannot prove that AHM owed
them a duty of disclosure because there was no direct transaction between the
parties in which information could be disclosed, 3) Plaintiffs cannot prove
that AHM concealed a material fact, 4) Plaintiffs cannot prove fraud damages as
they lack evidence to establish the difference in the market value of the
Subject Vehicle and the value of the vehicle they received, and 5) Plaintiffs’
Third Cause of Action fails under the economic loss doctrine.
On
February 1, 2024, AHM moved to continue the May 14, 2024 trial date because the
earliest date available to have its motion for summary adjudication heard was
May 1, 2024, which was less than 30 days before the trial date. (CCP §437c,
subd. (a)(3).) Trial was continued to July 17, 2024. (2/1/24 Minute Order.)
On
April 17, 2024, the Court approved a stipulation to continue the trial and
motion for summary adjudication on the grounds that AHM’s PMQ was not available
until July 26, 2024. (4/17/24 Stipulation.) Trial was continued to October 17,
2024, and the Motion for Summary Adjudication was continued to September 3,
2024. (Ibid.)
Discussion
Timeliness
Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h)
allows a request for a continuance to be made through affidavits accompanying
the opposition itself, or “by ex parte motion at any time on or before the date
the opposition response to the motion is due.”
The hearing is set for September 3, 2024, therefore,
opposition was due on August 20, 2024. (See CCP § 437c(b)(2).) An affidavit
requesting a continuance was submitted on August 20, 2024.
Accordingly, the affidavit in opposition was timely filed.
Request to Continue to the Motion for Summary
Adjudication
A declaration in support of a request for continuance under
Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h), must show: (1) the facts
to be obtained through additional discovery are essential to opposing the
motion; (2) there is reason to believe such facts may exist; and (3) the
reasons additional time is needed to obtain these facts. (Cooksey v.
Alexakis (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 246, 254; Combs v. Skyriver
Communications Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1270.)
On August 20, 2024, in opposition to AHM’s Motion for
Summary Adjudication, Plaintiffs filed an affidavit by Timothy Lupinek, counsel
for Plaintiffs. Lupinek states that AHM’s PMQ, Jennifer Pacheco, was deposed on
July 16, 2024, but she was not designated to provide testimony to matter
numbers 1-26 in Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition. (Lupinek Decl., ¶5, Ex. A.)
These matters include when “Defendant was put on notice of the defective nature
of the Collision Mitigation Braking System equipped in the Subject Vehicle and
similar Collision Mitigation Braking Systems in other vehicles, Defendant’s
reports regarding motor vehicle accidents caused by defective Collision Mitigation
Braking System, which are the same kind as the transmission equipped in the
Subject Vehicle, and Defendant’s disclosures, if any, to any consumers,
including Plaintiffs, that the Collision Mitigation Braking System was
defective …” (Id., ¶10.) Lupinek asserts these matters are essential to
obtain testimony for Plaintiffs to oppose Defendant’s motion for summary
adjudication.” (Ibid.)
AHM argues that even if Plaintiffs obtain a further
deposition of AHM’s PMQ, Plaintiffs will lack admissible evidence to
successfully oppose the motion for summary adjudication. In the Court’s view, this remains to be
seen. The Court determines that
Plaintiffs have adequately shown that facts essential to justify opposition may
exist but cannot, for the reasons stated, be presented at this time. The Court notes that trial was continued the
first time to permit AHM’s motion to be heard more than 30 days before
trial. Trial was continued the second
time to accommodate the schedule of AHM’s PMQ.
AHM does not argue it will be prejudiced by further delay.
Accordingly, Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s
Motion for Summary Adjudication of the Third Cause of Action Fraudulent
Inducement—Concealment is CONTINUED to February 25, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept.
SE-C. Opposition and Reply briefs to be
filed in compliance with the new hearing date.