Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01237, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01237    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: C

RAMIREZ v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

CASE NO.:  22NWCV01237

HEARING:  05/18/23

#3

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED with 30 days leave to amend.

Moving Party to give Notice.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer, and the rules governing demurrers apply.

This “lemon law” action was filed by Plaintiff MARIA RAMIREZ (“Plaintiff”) on November 7, 2022.

The Complaint alleges, in pertinent part, “On August 11, 2022, Plaintiff entered into a warranty contract with FORD regarding a 2020 Ford Explorer…. [¶] Defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period, including but not limited to transmission, electrical, interior, suspension, and HVAC.” (Complaint ¶¶15-16.) “Defendant was unable to conform the Subject Vehicle to the applicable express warranty after a reasonable number of repair attempts.” (Complaint ¶19.) “Defendant FORD has failed to either promptly replace the Subject Vehicle or to promptly make restitution in accordance with the Song-Beverly Act.” (Complaint ¶21.)

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty; and (2) Negligent Repair.

Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY (“Defendant”) moves for judgment on the pleadings as to of Plaintiff’s and Second Causes of Action.

First Cause of Action – Violation of Song-Beverly Act- Breach of Express Warranty

Defendant argues that Plaintiff bought a used 2020 Ford Explorer from a dealership, and that Defendant did not issue any warranties in connection with the sale of the Subject Vehicle as a used vehicle sold by the unidentified dealer.

The recent decision from the Fourth District, Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209 (Rodriguez) holds that the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act does not apply to used vehicles sold with a balance remaining on the manufacturer’s express warranty. (Id. at 225.)  “Though we think Jensen was correctly decided, we agree with Dagher that its statement about ‘the Act’s coverage for subsequent purchasers of vehicles with a balance remaining on the express warranty, must be read in light of the facts then before the court, and are limited in that respect.’ [Citation.] Given that those facts included a car leased with a full manufacturer’s warranty issued by the manufacturer’s representative, the court was not asked to decide whether a used car with an unexpired warranty sold by a third party reseller qualifies as a ‘new motor vehicle.’” (Id. at 224.) Rodriguez is, however, pending before our Supreme Court and thus constitutes only persuasive authority and “has no binding or precedential effect.” (CRC Rule 8.1115(e)(1).)

This Court finds Rodriguez to be persuasive, given the facts of the instant case. Here, Plaintiff does not allege or argue that Defendant issued a new or full express warranty with the vehicle at the time of sale to the plaintiff.

In Opposition, Plaintiff urges this Court to follow the binding authority of Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112. However, as indicated above, Jensen is distinguishable. In Jensen, the manufacturer-affiliated dealer issued a new car warranty with the plaintiff’s lease. (Id. at 119.) Those facts are not alleged here.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rodriguez, judgment on the pleadings is properly GRANTED as to the first cause of action.

Second Cause of Action – Negligent Repair

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s third cause of action, as alleged, is barred by the economic loss rule.

The economic loss rule provides that “where a purchaser’s expectations in a sale are frustrated because the product he bought is not working properly, his [or her] remedy is said to be in contract alone, for he [or she] has suffered only economic losses.”  (Robinson Helicopter Company v. Dana Corporation (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988.)  “Tort damages have been permitted in contract cases where a breach of duty directly causes physical injury; for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in insurance contracts; for wrongful discharge in violation of fundamental public policy; or where the contract was fraudulently induced…. in each of these cases, the duty that gives rise to tort liability is either completely independent of the contract or arises from conduct which is both intentional and intended to harm.”  (Robinson, supra, 34 Cal.4th at 989–990.)

In Robinson, the California Supreme Court carved out a “narrow” and “limited” exception to the economic loss rule, holding that “a defendant's affirmative misrepresentations on which a plaintiff relies and which expose a plaintiff to liability for personal damages independent of the plaintiff's economic loss” is excluded from the economic loss rule.  (Robinson, supra, 34 Cal.4th at 993.) 

Here, Plaintiff alleges a claim for negligent repair which does not fall within the narrow exceptions carved out by the California Supreme Court in Robinson.  Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant engaged in any intentional misconduct or made any affirmative misrepresentations. As alleged, the economic loss rule bars Plaintiff’s recovery under the second cause of action.

The motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the second cause of action is GRANTED.

In the interests of justice, 30 days leave to amend is GRANTED. (See CCP §438(h)(2).)