Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case 20STCV00294 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV00294, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 20STCV00294 Hearing Date: February 17, 2023 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion for Prejudgment Interest

Moving Party: Plaintiff Daryl White

Resp. Party: Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Prejudgment Interest is DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On January 6, 2020, Plaintiff Daryl White filed Complaint against Defendant Kia Motors America on causes of action regarding the defects with his car. The causes of action were:

(1) Breach of express warranty in violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act;

(2) Breach of implied warranty in violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act;

(3) Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2;

(4) Fraudulent inducement by concealment; and

(5) Fraudulent inducement by intentional misrepresentation.

On October 22, 2020, Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. (sued as Kia Motors America) filed its Answer.

On October 1, 2021, the Court granted summary adjudication in favor of Defendant as to the fourth and fifth causes of action in Plaintiff’s Complaint, as well as summary adjudication in favor of Defendant as to Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.

On January 9, 2023, after five days of Trial, the Jury found: (1) for Defendant and against Plaintiff on the cause of action for breach of express warranty; and (2) for Plaintiff and against Defendant on the cause of action for breach of the Song-Beverly Act. Pursuant to the second finding, the Jury found damages of $42,264.34, found that damages after accounting for the value of the use of the car before it was brought in for repair was $28,376.62, and imposed a civil penalty of $49,659.09 (which was 1.75 times the value of damages less the value of the car before it was brought in for repair).

On January 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Prejudgment Interest. Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Jacob Cutler; (2) Proposed Order; (3) Proposed Judgment; and (4) Proof of Service.

On February 3, 2023, Defendant filed its Opposition.

On February 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Reply.

ANALYSIS:

I. Legal Standard

“A person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in the person upon a particular day, is entitled also to recover interest thereon from that day, except when the debtor is prevented by law, or by the act of the creditor from paying the debt. . . .” (Civ. Code, § 3287, subd. (a).)

“Every person who is entitled under any judgment to receive damages based upon a cause of action in contract where the claim was unliquidated, may also recover interest thereon from a date prior to the entry of judgment as the court may, in its discretion, fix, but in no event earlier than the date the action was filed.” (Civ. Code, § 3287, subd. (b).)

II. Discussion

A. The Parties’ Arguments

Plaintiff moves the Court for an award of prejudgment interest, either in the amount of $29,228.24 pursuant to Civil Code section 3289, subdivision (a), or in the amount of $12,440.68 pursuant to Civil Code section 3289, subdivision (b). (Motion, p. 10:7–10.) Plaintiff argues: (1) that an award of prejudgment interest is procedurally proper; (2) that Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a) based on his liquidated compensatory damages; and (3) that, alternatively, Plaintiff should be awarded prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (b). (Id. at pp. 2:13, 3:25–26, 8:2–3.)

Defendant opposes the Motion, arguing: (1) that Plaintiff has failed to prove the amount of prejudgment interest to which he is entitled; (2) that Plaintiff is not entitled to prejudgment interest because Plaintiff’s damages were not certain or capable or being calculated to a certainty until the jury returned its verdict; and (3) that the interest rate for prejudgment interest is 7%, not 10%. (Opposition, pp. 3:23–24, 5:14–16, 7:18.)

Plaintiff reiterates its arguments in its Reply, as well as arguing that the correct interest rate is 10%. (Reply, p. 11:6.)

B. The Availability of Prejudgment Interest for Implied Warranty Claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act

1. Legal Standard

“Any buyer of consumer goods injured by a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and where applicable by a breach of the implied warranty of fitness has the remedies provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 2601) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2701) of Division 2 of the Commercial Code, and, in any action brought under such provisions, Section 1794 of this chapter shall apply.” (Civ. Code, § 1791.1, subd. (d).)

“Any buyer of consumer goods who is damaged by a failure to comply with any obligation under this chapter or under an implied or express warranty or service contract may bring an action for the recovery of damages and other legal and equitable relief.” (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (a).)

The “Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act permits recovery of prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3287.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1006.) This is because “it is well established that prejudgment interest may be awarded under Civil Code section 3287 even if it is not specifically authorized by the statute underlying the plaintiff’s claims.” (County of Solano v. Lionsgate Corp. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 741, 752 [citations omitted].)

2. Discussion

Here, Plaintiff moves the Court for prejudgment interest because he prevailed on his claim for breach of the Song-Beverly Act.

Pursuant to the code sections and case law cited above, recovery of prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3287 is permitted for judgments for breach of the Song-Beverly Act.

C. Which, if Any, Subdivision of Section 3287 Applies

1. Subdivision (a)

As Plaintiff is the prevailing party and judgment will be entered in his favor, the question of recovery under Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a) is whether damages were certain, or capable of being made certain, and vested in Plaintiff upon a particular day. (Civ. Code § 3287, subd. (a).)

“Damages are deemed certain or capable of being made certain within the provisions of subdivision (a) of section 3287 where there is essentially no dispute between the parties concerning the basis of computation of damages if any are recoverable but where their dispute centers on the issue of liability giving rise to damages. Thus, the test for recovery of prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a) is whether defendant actually knows the amount owed or from reasonably available information could the defendant have computed that amount. The statute does not authorize prejudgment interest where the amount of damage, as opposed to the determination of liability, depends upon a judicial determination based upon conflicting evidence and it is not ascertainable from truthful data supplied by the claimant to his debtor. Thus, where the amount of damages cannot be resolved except by verdict or judgment, prejudgment interest is not appropriate.” (Duale v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 718, 729 [cleaned up].)

In this case, “[p]laintiff concedes [the amount of damages for incidental damages, consequential damages, and civil penalty] were unknown to [Defendant] until Plaintiff produced documents and evidence regarding those amounts, and those amounts were contested throughout trial.” (Motion, p. 1:16–19.) Indeed, Plaintiff further notes how the damages amount of $41,308.25 that Plaintiff calculated is substantially similar to (but not the same as) the $42,264.34 in damages the Jury found. (Id. at fn. 1.) Thus, liability was not the sole issue; rather the amount of damages was clearly also an issue in this matter.

Prejudgment interest is not applicable in this matter pursuant to Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a).

2. Subdivision (b)

However, as Defendant stressed in oral argument, the jury did not find for Plaintiff on his contract claim. The verdict form – which was approved by both parties – asked two questions concerning liability:

“1. On Plaintiff Daryl White’s cause of action for breach of the express warranty,

___ We find for Plaintiff Daryl While and against Defendant Kia Motors;

_X_ We find for Defendant Kia Motors and against Plaintiff Daryl White

“2. On Plaintiff Daryl White’s cause of action for breach of the Song-Beverly Act,

_X_ We find for Plaintiff Daryl While and against Defendant Kia Motors;

___ We find for Defendant Kia Motors and against Plaintiff Daryl White”

The jury found for Defendant on question No. 1, and for Plaintiff on question No. 2.

In other words, the jury only found for Plaintiff on his statutory cause of action but did not find for him on his contract cause of action.

Therefore, Civil Code § 3287(b) does not apply in this case.

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion for Prejudgment Interest is DENIED.