Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV24568, Date: 2025-06-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24568    Hearing Date: June 13, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: June 13, 2025 

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter 

Motion for Summary Adjudication 

Moving Party: Plaintiff Himal Jayawardana  

Responding Party: Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA LLC 

T/R:    PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION IS DENIED. 

PLAINTIFF¿TO NOTICE.¿¿ 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

The Court considers¿the moving papers, opposition and reply. 

BACKGROUND 

This is a lemon law action arising out of Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2021 Mercedes-Benz S580 manufactured and distributed by Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA LLC.  

ANALYSIS 

“In moving for summary judgment, a ‘plaintiff . . . has met’ his ‘burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if’ he ‘has proved each element of the cause of action entitling’ him ‘to judgment on that cause of action.’”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.¿(2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849 (as modified (July 11, 2001).)  The plaintiff “must present evidence that would¿require¿a reasonable trier of fact to find any underlying material fact more likely than not—otherwise, he would not be entitled to judgment¿as a matter of law,¿but would have to present his evidence to a trier of fact.”  (Id., at 851, original italics.) 

Once the plaintiff has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to¿the¿cause of action or a defense thereto.  (CCP § 437c(p)(1).)  “There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”  (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 850.)  The defendant “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.”  (CCP § 437c(p)(1).) 

A. Mileage Deduction and Plaintiff’s Claim for Civil Penalty 

Plaintiff asks the Court to adjudicate whether Mercedes-Benz's mileage deduction as set forth in its repurchase offer failed to comply with Civil Code § 1793.2 (d)(2)(c), and whether Defendant acted in bad faith, entitling Plaintiff to civil penalties.  

CCP § 437c(f)(1) provides, (f)(1), “A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” Under this subsection, “a claim for damages” refers to a claim for punitive damages. 

If a party seeks to adjudicate a claim for damages, other than punitive damages, that does not completely dispose of a cause of action or affirmative defense, the parties must submit a stipulation stating “that the motion will further the interest of judicial economy by decreasing trial time or significantly increasing the likelihood of settlement;” the Court then determines whether to allow the motion. (CCP § 437c(t).) 

Plaintiff seeks summary adjudication of facts and claims for damages that do not completely dispose of any cause of action or affirmative defense. Under the summary judgment statute, this is not permitted.  

B. Affirmative Defense of No Civil Penalty 

                Plaintiff moves for summary adjudication of Defendant’s second affirmative defense of “No Civil Penalty.” Plaintiff asserts that this affirmative defense fails because Defendant did not provide any support for the defense in its discovery responses. In opposition, Defendant presents evidence showing it calculated the mileage based on its review of the repair orders in which Plaintiff’s vehicle showed 15,959 miles, and promptly agreed to repurchase the vehicle. Defendant argues that this shows a triable issue of fact as to whether Defendant acted in bad faith and whether Plaintiff is entitled to civil penalties. The Court agrees. 

                Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.