Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV02902, Date: 2024-07-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02902    Hearing Date: July 16, 2024    Dept: C

Steven Sanchez vs Ford Motor Company, et al.

Case No.: 23NWCV02902

Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 at 10:30 a.m.

#8

Tentative Ruling

Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Demurrer to the First, Second, and Third Causes of Action is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend. 

Defendant Ken Grody Ford’s Demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Defendants to give notice.

Background

This lemon law action was filed on September 13, 2023 by Plaintiff Steven Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) against Defendants Ford Motor Company and Ken Grody Ford Buena Park (collectively “Defendants”) alleging four causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act-Breach of Express Warranty; (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act- Breach of Implied Warranty; (3) Violation of Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2; (4) Negligent Repair.

Defendant Ford Motor Company demurs to the First through Third Causes of Action on the grounds that the Song-Beverly Act does not extend warranties for used vehicles to original manufacturers.

Defendant Ken Grody demurs to the Fourth Cause of Action on the grounds that Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action.

Legal Standard 

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the pleading states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (CCP § 430.10(e); Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.)¿ 

The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.) The court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.) 

The Song-Beverly Causes of Action

Ford argues that the first through third causes of action fail because Plaintiff bought a used car, not a new car. Civ. Code §1793.22 (e) defines what “New Motor Vehicle” means for purposes of the Song-Beverly Act, including “a dealer-owned vehicle and a “demonstrator” or other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty.” (CCP § 1793.22(e)(2).)¿Ford cites Rodriguez v.  FCA US LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209, 218, review granted July 13, 2022, S274625. Rodriguez is cited here for its persuasive value.¿¿ 

Rodriguez parses the meaning of the words, “or other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty,” to determine whether this covers the sale of previously owned vehicles with some balance remaining on the manufacturer’s express warranty. In a well-reasoned and persuasive opinion, Rodriguez concludes it does not. Instead, it holds that “demonstrators and dealer-owned vehicles” are a narrow class of “basically new vehicles” that “have never been previously sold to a consumer and they come with full express warranties.” Rodriguez, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th 209 at 220, bolding added. “[W]e conclude the phrase “other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty” unambiguously refers to cars that come with a new or full express warranty.” (Id. at 222.)¿ 

Rodriguez distinguishes Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, a case where the consumer was provided with the manufacturer’s full new car warranty. While the holding of Jensen is that cars sold with a balance remaining on the manufacturer’s new motor vehicle warranty are “new motor vehicles” within the meaning of Civ. Code §1793.22, Rodriguez notes that Jensen was not required to decide the issue since the subject vehicle there was sold with a full new car warranty. It notes that other cases, including Dagher v. Ford Motor Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 905, have also found it appropriate to limit Jensen to the facts before it. For example, Kiluk v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 334, 340, expressed having reservations about applying Jensen but found it did not have to under the particular facts before it. 

Here, Plaintiff’s 2019 Ford F-150 was purchased used with 30,031 miles on it. (Lally Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A) Plaintiff does not allege he purchased this car with a new car warranty. (Complaint ¶ 9.)

In his opposition, Plaintiff urges the Court to follow the recently decided case of Stiles v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5^th 913.  Stiles held that a previously owned motor vehicle purchased with the manufacturer’s new car warranty still in effect is a “new motor vehicle” eligible for the replace and refund remedy under the Song-Beverly Act. Stiles v. Kia Motors, Inc, supra, at 919.  However, Plaintiff cannot rely upon Stiles because the Complaint, as currently pled, does not allege that Plaintiff’s vehicle had remaining miles on the manufacturer’s written warranty.

Because the car at issue is a used car and there is no allegation of any remaining miles on the manufacture’s written warranty the Demurrer to the First, Second and Third Causes of Action is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

Negligent Repair Cause of Action

Defendant Ken Grody Ford demurs to the fourth cause of action on grounds that the cause of action is barred by the economic loss rule, and that Plaintiffs fail to plead damages. Plaintiff’s lack of opposition to this argument is deemed to be a concession.   

Accordingly, the Demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.