Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01067, Date: 2023-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01067    Hearing Date: October 5, 2023    Dept: C

ASPRILLA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

CASE NO.:  23NWCV01067

HEARING:  10/05/23

#6

Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend.

Moving Party to give Notice.

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. (Cal. Ev. Code §452.)

On April 6, 2023, Plaintiff Francisco Garcia Asprilla (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants for violations of statutory obligations.

On April 5, 2021, Plaintiff entered into a warranty contract with Ford regarding a 2018 Ford EcoSport. (Complaint ¶7.) The warranty contract contained various warranties, including but not limited to the bumper-bumper warranty, powertrain warranty, emission warranty, etc. (Id. ¶8.) Defects and nonconformities manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period which substantially impaired the use, value, or safety of the Subject Vehicle. (Complaint ¶¶12-13.)

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action:

(1) Violation of Cal. Civ. Code §1793.2(d);

(2) Violation of Cal. Civ Code §1793.2(b);

(3) Violation of Cal. Civ. Code §1793.2(a)(3);

(4) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability;

(5) Negligent Repair against Defendant Central Ford; and

(6) Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY (“Defendant”) generally demurs to the first, second, third, fourth, and sixth causes of action.  

First through Fourth Causes of Action

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

The 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, the demurrer is properly sustained as to the first through fourth causes of action. The demurrer to the first through fourth causes of action is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend.

Sixth Cause of Action – Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

The Magnuson-Moss Act “authorizes a civil suit by a consumer to enforce the terms of an implied or express warranty.” (Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 824, 835.) It “calls for the application of state written and implied warranty law, not the creation of additional federal law, except in specific instances in which it expressly prescribes a regulating rule.” (Id. at 833.)

Given the Court’s ruling with respect to the first through fourth causes of action, the demurrer to the sixth cause of action is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend.