TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Rolls-Royce Motor Cars NA, LLC’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED with thirty (30) days leave to amend.

Defendant Rolls-Royce Motor Cars NA, LLC to give notice. 

REASONING

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant Rolls-Royce Motor Cars NA, LLC (“Defendant”) requests judicial notice of its Statement of Information filed the Secretary of State. Defendant’s request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h).

Analysis

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff Hrachya Khachatryan (“Plaintiff”)’s causes of action for breach of written warranty, breach of implied warranty, and negligent manufacture on the grounds that Plaintiff purchased his vehicle used, Defendant is a distributor and not a manufacturer, and the economic loss rule bars Plaintiff’s negligence claim.

First Cause of Action: Breach of Written Warranty and Second Cause of Action: Breach of Implied Warranty

“[T]o prevail on a breach of express warranty claim, the plaintiff must prove (1) the seller’s statements constitute an affirmation of fact or promise or a description of the goods; (2) the statement was part of the basis of the bargain; and (3) the warranty was breached.” (Patricia A. Murray Dental Corp. v. Dentsply International, Inc. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 258, 275, quotation marks omitted.)

Defendant alleges that he purchased the subject vehicle, a used 2019 Rolls Royce Phantom, from O’Gara Coach Company on December 4, 2020. (Compl. ¶ 3.) Neither the complaint nor the sale contract attached to the complaint as Exhibit A (Compl. ¶ 3, Ex. A) indicate that a full new car warranty was provided with the sale of the vehicle. Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209, 225, stands for the proposition that the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act does not apply to used vehicles sold with a balance remaining on the manufacturer’s express warranty. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that he was given a new warranty, but this is not clear from the face of the complaint or the exhibits attached thereto. 

“‘Implied warranty of merchantability’ or ‘implied warranty that goods are merchantable’ means that the consumer goods meet each of the following: [¶] (1) Pass without objection in the trade under the contract description. [¶] (2) Are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used. [¶] (3) Are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled. [¶] (4) Conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.” (Civ. Code, § 1791.1, subd. (a).) Nunez v. FCA US LLC (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 385, 398, provides that an “implied warranty claim fails as a matter of law” where a vehicle is purchased used from a third-party dealer “because in the sale of used consumer goods, liability for breach of implied warranty lies with distributors and retailers, not the manufacturer, where there is no evidence, the manufacturer played any role in the sale of the used car to plaintiff.”

Again, Plaintiff does not allege in the complaint that Defendant is a distributor or retailer; rather, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is manufacturer, and he purchased the vehicle from a third-party retailer. (Compl. ¶ 2.) Thus, there is no basis to conclude that Defendant is liable under an implied warranty theory because, again, Plaintiff purchased the car used from a third party. While it is not clear how Plaintiff can amend these claims to state a cause of action against Defendant, the Court will allow Plaintiff the opportunity to sufficiently allege these causes of action. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED with thirty (30) days leave to amend as to the first and second causes of action.

Third Cause of Action: Negligent Manufacture

To state a claim for negligence, Plaintiff must allege the elements of (1) “the existence of a legal duty of care,” (2) “breach of that duty,” and (3) “proximate cause resulting in an injury.” (McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.)

In the third cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s negligent manufacture of the vehicle has caused him damages due to the defects. (Compl. ¶¶ 35-38.) Under the economic loss rule, a party may not recover for “purely economic losses, i.e., those not accompanied by either property damage or physical injuries.” (Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1210.) Plaintiff appears to be alleging a claim solely for economic loss, not accompanied by property damage or physical injuries, such that it is not clear that this claim can survive. For that reason, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED with thirty (30) days leave to amend as to the third cause of action.