Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV17659, Date: 2024-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV17659    Hearing Date: September 6, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 6, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiffs David Navarro, et al.

T/R:      DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

DEFENDANTS 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 the lease and purchase of a 2019 Mercedes E-CLASS manufactured and distributed by Defendant Mercedes-Benz. Plaintiffs bring this action for violations of the Song-Beverly Act.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action in it.  (CCP § 430.50(a).)  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)  The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Id. at 732-33.)  The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Id. at 733.)

Defendant demurs to the complaint for violation of the Song-Beverly Act on the ground that Plaintiffs fail to allege they purchased a “new” vehicle. Plaintiffs allege the non-conformities in the vehicle occurred during the express warranty period, but do not allege that they purchased the vehicle in new condition directly from the distributor.

There is a split in authority over whether a previously owned motor vehicle bought with the manufacturer’s new car warranty is still a “new motor vehicle” as defined by Civil Code § 1793.22, subdivision (e)(2). The Fourth District of the Court of Appeal in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209 held that such a vehicle is not a new motor vehicle under the Act, thus exempting it under the Act. The Second District in Stiles v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 913 held the opposite.

The Court is persuaded by the reasoning in Stiles. The California Supreme Court has taken Rodriguez under review. Should the Supreme Court uphold Rodriguez, Defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings.

Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.