Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV04854, Date: 2025-05-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV04854 Hearing Date: May 20, 2025 Dept: 61
ENRIQUE ALVAREZ CASTILLO vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Tentative
Defendant General Motors, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment is CONTINUED to August 19, 2025, at 10:00 am. Plaintiff Enrique Alvarez Castillo shall file a First Amended Complaint within 10 days of this order, whereupon the motion for summary judgment shall be taken off-calendar.
Plaintiffs to give notice.
Analysis
I. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A party may move for summary judgment “if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (a).) “[I]f 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,” the moving party will be entitled to summary judgment. (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) A motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (f)(2).)
The moving party bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact, and if he does so, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850; accord 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 that cause of action or a defense thereto. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 850.) The plaintiff may not rely upon the mere 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 that cause of action or a defense thereto. (Ibid.) To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)
Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant) moves for summary judgment on the four causes of action asserted by Plaintiff Enrique Alvarez Castillo (Plaintiff) in his Complaint, on the grounds that since the Complaint was filed on March 6, 2023, the California Supreme Court has determined that lemon law actions such as Plaintiff’s under the Song Beverly Act cannot be had against the manufacturer where the product purchased is a used good. (Motion at pp. 4–6.) “For new products, liability extends to the manufacturer; for used products, liability extends to the distributor or retail seller and not to the manufacturer, at least where the manufacturer has not issued a new warranty or played a substantial role in the sale of a used good.” (Rodriguez v. FCA US LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189, 202.)
Plaintiff in opposition does not contest that this authority bars his claims, but seeks leave to amend to assert legal theories under the federal Magnuson-Moss Act and California’s Commercial Code. (Opposition at pp. 4–9.) Defendant in reply argues that Plaintiff’s belated efforts to amend come too late. (Reply at pp. 4–5.)*
Though styled a motion for summary judgment, the present motion is essentially one on the pleadings, based on the contention that the allegations that the subject vehicle was purchased as a used good render Plaintiff’s claims against the manufacturer defendant unavailing under the Song Beverly Act.** On such pleading-focused motions, leave to amend is ordinarily granted where prior opportunity for amendment has not been given, and leave to amend may be granted even on a motion for summary judgment: “If the motion for summary judgment presents evidence sufficient to disprove the plaintiff's claims, as opposed to merely attacking the sufficiency of the complaint, the plaintiff forfeits an opportunity to amend to state new claims by failing to request it.” (Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1664.) Defendant’s motion here is merely one based on the “sufficiency of the complaint,” and Plaintiff requests leave to amend to assert alternative legal theories. (Ibid.) Thus, even though Defendant’s arguments are correct, leave to amend is proper here.
The motion for summary judgment is therefore CONTINUED to permit Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint, which he shall file within 10 days. The motion for summary judgment shall be taken off-calendar upon the filing of the new pleading.
___________
*Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend on April 8, 2025, alongside an ex parte application to specially set a hearing date on the motion.
**The motion also includes a procedurally improper request that this court adjudicate a certain item of damages, without the stipulations required for such a motion as stated in Code of Civil Procedure § 437c, subd. (t). (Motion at pp. 6–7.)