Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 22STCV01871, Date: 2025-01-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV01871 Hearing Date: January 7, 2025 Dept: 45
ALAN, et al.
v. conejo valley heating & AIR Conditioning, Inc.
defendant CONEJO
VALLEY HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Date of Hearing: January
7, 2025 Trial Date: March
24, 2025
Department: 45 Case
No.: 22STCV01871
Moving Party: Defendant
Conejo Valley Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.
Responding Party: Plaintiff Jason Alan
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs
Jason Alan and Lisa Schwab-Troy filed this action on January 18, 2022 and a
First Amended Complaint (FAC) on February 16, 2022. Plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint (SAC) on December 27, 2022 against defendant Conejo Valley
Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. dba Conejo Valley Heating and Air
Conditioning, Inc., alleging causes of action for (1) Violation of California
Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200); (2) Violation of
California False Advertising Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500); (3) Negligent
Misrepresentation; (4) Fraud; (5) The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ.
Code § 1793.2); (6) The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code §§ 1790,
et seq.); and (7) Violation of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civ.
Code § 1791.1).
The
SAC alleges the following: On August 20, 2020, Defendant and Plaintiffs
contracted for Defendant to install an HVAC system in Plaintiffs’ home. (SAC, ¶
11.) Defendant made numerous recommendations to Plaintiffs regarding the
installation of the HVAC system in the subject property at the time of
contracting, which Plaintiffs relied upon. (Id. at ¶ 13.) Defendant warranted
that the HVAC system was sufficient to heat and cool a two story, 2,200 square
foot property. (Id. at ¶ 17.) However, the HVAC system that Defendant installed
does not adequately cool or heat the subject property. (Id. at ¶ 18.)
Specifically, the HVAC system will cool the subject property’s bottom floor to
an extreme degree, while the second floor will remain substantially warmer.
(Id.) In October 2021, Plaintiffs notified Defendant of the HVAC system’s
problems. (Id. at ¶ 44.) Defendant represented to Plaintiffs that they can fix
the system at a substantial cost to Plaintiffs. (Id.) Defendant did not offer
to perform the necessary repair work without charging Plaintiffs, despite
Defendant’s tacit admission that its original installation was not proper.
(Id.) Defendant made at least three attempts to fix the system but failed to
remedy the defects. (Id. at ¶ 45.) Plaintiffs hired an independent Home Energy
Rating System (HERS) testing company on December 28, 2021 that revealed the
HVAC system grossly fails the standard HERS test. (Id. at ¶ 35, Exh. B.)
Defendant
Conejo Valley Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. filed this motion for
summary adjudication on October 4, 2023. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on November
19, 2024. Defendant replied on December
30, 2024.
Defendant
moves for summary adjudication primarily on the basis that Plaintiff Jasan Alan
was not a signatory to the contract when his mother, Plaintiff Lisa
Schwab-Troy, purchased the HVAC system, which is the focus of this case. In his opposition, Plaintiff Alan states that
he was present at the negotiations for the purchase of the HVAC system and
participated in the conversations and negotiations because at the time he was
intending to purchase the property from his mother and her husband, which he
subsequently did purchase the following year.
Plaintiff argues that he has lost money in relying on the HVAC system
which does not work properly.
[Tentative] Ruling
1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED as to
counts 1-4.
2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is MOOT as
plaintiff has agreed to dismiss these claims.
3.
Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice
is GRANTED.
ANALYSIS
The
purpose of a motion for summary judgment “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.) “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.)
“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.) “When deciding whether to grant
summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the
papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well
as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light
most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th
463, 467; see also CCP § 437c(c).)
“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 present, 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.” (CCP § 437c(h).)
First Cause of Action
Defendants
allege that the first cause of cause of action for violating California Unfair
Practices Act, Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq., because Plaintiff cannot
show he suffered an injury caused by Defendant.
Defendant argues that because Plaintiff did not own the subject property
in August 2020, at the time that the HVAC system was purchased, he did not “lose
any money or property because of the Contract.”
(Motion, UMF, Nos. 10, 11, 12.)
This meets the moving party’s burden, and the burden shifts to Plaintiff
to provide contrary evidence. In
response, Plaintiff submits evidence in the form of a declaration that he was
present during the negotiations and then subsequently purchased the property. As purchaser of the property, Plaintiff paid
the remaining loan debt for the HVAC system on the assumption that the HVAC
system worked properly, based on Defendant’s sales pitch. (Opp. Responses, 10, 11, 12, 15., 16.) This creates a triable issue of act as to whether
Plaintiff was injured by Defendant. As
to this cause of action, the motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.
Second Cause of Action –
Similarly,
Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot show a claim for a violation of the California
False Advertising Law, Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq., because he did
not suffer an economic injury from any advertising of Defendant. Here, Defendants rely on their undisputed
facts that Plaintiff was not a party to the contract, did not pay Defendant for
the HVAC system, and didn’t lose any money or property because of the
Defendant’s actions. (UMF Nos. 2, 15,
16, and 18.) However, Plaintiff disputes
these facts with evidence that he relied on the Defendant’s assurances when he
purchased the property with the HVAC system, and suffered increased energy
bills due to the system not operating correctly. (Alan Decl. ¿ 4, 5., Plaintiff’s Separate Statement,
Nos. 10, 13.) This creates a triable
issue of act as to whether Plaintiff was injured by Defendant. As to this cause of action, the motion for
summary adjudication is DENIED.
Third Cause of Action – Negligent
Misrepresentation
Defendants
argue that Plaintiff cannot show a cause of action for negligent
misrepresentation because Plaintiff did not reasonably rely on the representations
of Defendant because he was not a party to the original contract, and Plaintiff
did not pay for the HVAC system, was not present for the installation, and Defendant
never made any representations to Plaintiff that he could have reasonably
relied on to his detriment. (UMF Nos. 23,
11, 27, 25, 30.) However, in his
Separate Statement, Plaintiff provides evidence, through his declaration, that
he did detrimentally rely on the representations of the Defendant. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, Nos. 11, 28,
30.) This creates a triable issue of act
as to whether Plaintiff reasonably relief on statements by Defendant. As to this cause of action, the motion for
summary adjudication is DENIED.
Fourth Cause of Action – Fraud
Defendants
state that the fourth cause of action for fraud has no merit because Plaintiff
cannot show just reliance or damages. Defendants allege again that Plaintiff was not
a party to the Contract (UMF, No. 34) and paid nothing for the HVAC System. (UMF, No. 11.) Again, Plaintiff has provided evidence
contradicting these factual allegations and creating a triable issue of fact. (Alan Decl. ¿ 2, 3, Plaintiff’s Separate Statement,
Nos. 10, 13.)
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion for summary
adjudication as to causes of action one through four is DENIED. Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication
as to cause of action five, six, and seven is moot as those claims have been
dismissed.
REQUEST
FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Defendant submits six exhibits in a request for judicial notice:
Exhibit A – Grant Deed dated June 6, 2019
Exhibit I – Grant Deed dated March 14, 2022
Exhibit L -- Business & Professions Code §17204
Exhibit M -- Business & Professions Code §17500, et seq
Exhibit N -- Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Civil Code §§§
1791.1, 1792, 1793, 1793.2, 1794, 1795.1
Exhibit O – Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs December
27, 2022
“‘Judicial notice is the
recognition and acceptance by the court, for use by the trier of fact or by the
court, of the existence of a matter of law or fact that is relevant to an issue
in the action without requiring formal proof of the matter.’” (Lockley v.
Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91
Cal.App.4th 875, 882, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 877.) A court may take judicial notice of something
that cannot reasonably be controverted, even if it negates an express
allegation of the pleading. (Columbia Casualty Co. v. Northwestern Nat. Ins.
Co. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 457, 468–469, 282 Cal.Rptr. 389.) This includes
recorded deeds. (Maryland Casualty Co. v. Reeder (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d
961, 977, 270 Cal.Rptr. 719.)
The court may take judicial notice
of “official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of
the United States and of any state of the United States,” “[r]ecords of (1) any
court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any
state of the United States,” and “[f]acts and propositions that are not
reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate
determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid.
Code § 452, subds. (c), (d), and (h).)
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s
requests for judicial notice. The Court notes, however, taking judicial notice
of a document is not the same as accepting the truth of its contents or
accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning. (Herrera v. Deutsche
Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375.)¿When judicial
notice is taken of a document, the truthfulness and proper interpretation of
the document are disputable. (Ibid.) Judicial notice of a Court record is
limited to the existence of the documents and is not the same as taking notice
of the truth of any matters or facts stated therein. (Ibid.)¿¿¿