TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Bentley Motors, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.

Defendant Bentley Motors, Inc. shall prepare, serve, and submit a propose judgment as per statute.

Defendant Bentley Motors, Inc. to give notice. 

REASONING

Defendant Bentley Motors, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves the Court for an order granting summary judgment or adjudication in their favor as to Plaintiff James Won (“Plaintiff”)’s claims for breach of implied warranty and breach of express warranty. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion. While the moving party generally bears the initial burden of proof on its motion, and lack of opposition will not automatically entitle the moving party to prevail on its motion, a party’s failure to file an opposition can be considered a concession that the motion is meritorious. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Legal Standard

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) 

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Ibid.) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467 (Avivi).)

“Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) “[T]he court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection) . . . in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

Analysis

“A plaintiff pursuing an action under the Song-Beverly Act has the burden to prove the following elements: (1) the product had a defect or nonconformity covered by the express warranty; (2) the product was presented to an authorized representative of the manufacturer for repair; and (3) the manufacturer or its representative did not repair the defect or nonconformity after a reasonable number of repair attempts.” (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 798-799.) Defendant argues that it is entitled to adjudication and judgment in its favor because Plaintiff did not purchase a new vehicle.

First Cause of Action: Breach of Express Warranty

Defendant first argues that it is entitled to summary adjudication of the first cause of action for breach of express warranty because the subject vehicle was not a “new motor vehicle” under the Song-Beverly Act.

Defendant presents evidence that Plaintiff purchased a 2021 Bentley Bentayga VIN No. SJAAM2ZV1MC033128 from O’Gara Coach Company, LLC on September 20, 2021, with 5,904 miles on the odometer. (Def.’s UMF Nos. 1, 2.) Defendant’s express warranties on the vehicle commenced on October 23, 2020, when the vehicle was first placed into service as a factory executive vehicle, and when Plaintiff purchased the vehicle, Plaintiff was not provided with a full new car warranty. (Def.’s UMF Nos. 3, 4.) The vehicle was not sold as a Certified Pre-Owned vehicle, Defendant did not issue or extend any warranties on the vehicle in connection with the sale to Plaintiff, and Defendant is a distributor of new motor vehicles, not a distributor or retailer of used motor vehicles. (Def.’s UMF Nos. 5-7.) 

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. Defendant’s evidence allows Defendant to meet its burden of showing no triable issue of material fact exists as to whether Defendant breached an express warranty owed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not present evidence that Defendant issued a new or full express warranty with the vehicle at the time of the vehicle sale to Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the present motion renders it such that there is no triable issue of material fact as to Plaintiff’s claim for breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Act. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s first cause of action.

Second Cause of Action: Breach of Implied Warranty

Defendant also argues that it is entitled to summary adjudication of the second cause of action for breach of implied warranty because the subject vehicle is a used good, and Defendant is not a distributor or seller of used goods.

“‘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, Defendant presents evidence that Plaintiff purchased a 2021 Bentley Bentayga VIN No. SJAAM2ZV1MC033128 from O’Gara Coach Company, LLC on September 20, 2021, with 5,904 miles on the odometer (Def.’s UMF Nos. 1, 2) the vehicle was not sold as a Certified Pre-Owned vehicle, Defendant did not issue or extend any warranties on the vehicle in connection with the sale to Plaintiff, and Defendant is a distributor of new motor vehicles, not a distributor or retailer of used motor vehicles (Def.’s UMF Nos. 5-7).

Defendant’s evidence allows Defendant to meet its burden of showing no triable issue of material fact exists as to whether Defendant breached an implied warranty owed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not present evidence that he purchased a new vehicle or that Defendant is a distributor of used motor vehicles. Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the present motion renders it such that there is no triable issue of material fact as to Plaintiff’s claim for breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s second cause of action.

Conclusion

Given that Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication has been granted as to each claim alleged against Defendant, Defendant Bentley Motors, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is GRANTED. Defendant Bentley Motors, Inc. shall prepare, serve, and submit a propose judgment as per statute.