Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 22PSCV01062, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22PSCV01062, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01062 Hearing Date: January 8, 2025 Dept: 6

CASE NAME: Almarosa Hernandez v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of the Second Cause of Action for Fraudulent Inducement-Concealment

TENTATIVE RULING

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h), the Court CONTINUES the hearing on Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s motion for summary adjudication of the Second Cause of Action for fraudulent inducement-concealment to permit further discovery to be conducted. Plaintiff Almarosa Hernandez’s opposition, if any, will be due 20 days before the new hearing date per Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(2). Defendant’s reply, if any, will be due 11 days before the new hearing date per Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(4).

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law case. On September 15, 2022, plaintiff Almarosa Hernandez (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Defendant) and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty, and fraudulent inducement-concealment.

On October 17, 2024, Defendant moved for summary adjudication. On December 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed an affidavit in opposition to the motion and requested a continuance to permit further discovery. Defendant did not reply.

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. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “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, italics in original and quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.” (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.)

“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, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); see Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc., supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 1520.)

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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion “shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Ibid.; see Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)

Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

DISCUSSION

“If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just. The application to continue the motion to obtain necessary discovery may also be made by ex parte motion at any time on or before the date the opposition response to the motion is due.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (h).)

“[A] summary judgment is a drastic measure which deprives the losing party of trial on the merits. To mitigate summary judgment's harshness, the statute’s drafters included a provision making continuances—which are normally a matter within the broad discretion of trial courts—virtually mandated.... Where the opposing party submits an adequate affidavit showing that essential facts may exist but cannot be presented timely, the court must either deny summary judgment or grant a continuance.” (Dee v. Vintage Petroleum, Inc. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 30, 34-35, italics added, internal citations and quotation marks omitted.) “To make the requisite good faith showing, an opposing party's declaration must show (1) the facts to be obtained are essential to opposing the motion, (2) there is reason to believe such facts may exist, and (3) the reasons why additional time is needed to obtain these facts. (Chavez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 632, 643 (Chavez).)

In Plaintiff’s affidavit submitted in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication, Plaintiff requests the Court either deny Defendant’s motion or continue the hearing on it per Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h), on the grounds that additional evidence may exist to support Plaintiff’s opposition and that additional discovery is needed. Plaintiff contends the parties had agreed to a deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified and custodian of records to be taken on October 29, 2024, but Defendant did not appear for the deposition and Plaintiff still has not deposed Defendant’s person most qualified. (Lupinek Affidavit, ¶¶ 4-6.) Plaintiff also indicates that the parties are meeting and conferring regarding Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s written discovery. (Lupinek Affidavit, ¶¶ 8-9.) Plaintiff contends the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified and Defendant’s responses to the written discovery for which the parties are meeting and conferring may establish Defendant’s knowledge of the defective nature of the transmission at issue. (Lupinek Affidavit, ¶¶ 13-14.)

The Court finds Plaintiff has made a good faith showing to justify continuing the hearing on this motion. Whether Defendant knew of the alleged transmission defects before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle is essential to Plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement-concealment claim, and the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified and resolution of issues regarding Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s written discovery would likely lead to discovery of facts relevant to that issue. (See Chavez, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 643.) Also, the Court notes that an informal discovery conference regarding the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified is scheduled for the same date as the hearing on the motion for summary adjudication. Considering this issue is one of the reasons Plaintiff seeks this continuance, it makes sense to resolve this issue before the Court ultimately rules on the motion.

Therefore, per Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h), the Court will CONTINUE the hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication to permit the parties to conduct additional discovery.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.