Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV12037, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12037    Hearing Date: August 24, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Moving Party:  Defendant Jones BH Acquisition 

Resp. Party:    Plaintiff Brenda Sandoval

The Motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On May 26, 2023, Plaintiff Brenda Sandoval filed her Complaint against Defendants Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Audio Beverly Hills on causes of action pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

On June 29, 2023, Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. filed its Answer to the Complaint.

On July 13, 2023, Defendant Jones BH Acquisition (d.b.a. Audio Beverly Hills) filed its Answer to the Complaint.

On July 28, 2023, Defendant Jones BH Acquisition (“Defendant”) filed its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“Motion”). In support of the Motion, Defendant concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Aslan Petrosyan; and (2) Proposed Order.

On August 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Opposition to the Motion.

On August 17, 2023, Defendant filed its Reply regarding the Motion.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Legal Standard

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed.” (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064.)

“In deciding or reviewing a judgment on the pleadings, all properly pleaded material facts are deemed to be true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged.” (Fire Ins. Exch. v. Super. Ct. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings does not lie as to a portion of a cause of action. (Ibid.)

“In the case of either a demurrer or a motion for judgment on the pleadings, leave to amend should be granted if there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action.” (Gami v. Mullikin Med. Ctr. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 870, 876.)

A non-statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made any time before or during trial. (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.)

Because a motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, the procedures in responding to demurrers similarly apply to motions for judgment on the pleadings. (See, for example, Evinger v. Moran (1910) 14 Cal.App. 328, 329.)

II.        Discussion

Defendant moves the Court for judgment on the pleadings, arguing: (1) that the negligent repair claim fails to state facts to constitute a cause of action; and (2) that the negligent repair claim is barred by the economic loss rule. (Motion, pp. 6:11–12, 7:1.)

        The Court disagrees with Defendant’s arguments.

        First, Plaintiff alleges, among things: (1) that defects and nonconformities to the warranty manifested themselves within the applicable warranty period, including but not limited to engine defects, electric defects, infotainment defects, transmission defect, and other defects; and (2) that Defendant failed to properly store, prepare, and repair Plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with industry standards. (Complaint, ¶¶ 12, 49.) These allegations are sufficient for a statutory cause of action for negligent repair to withstand a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (See Civ. Code, §§ 1793.2, 1794.)

        Second, “the economic loss rule allows a plaintiff to recover for strict products liability in tort when a product defect causes damage to ‘other property,’ that is, property other than the product itself. The law of contractual warranty governs damage to the product itself.” (Jimenez v. Super. Ct. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 473, 483, italics in original, citations omitted; see also Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 989.) The economic loss rule does not bar this claim, where the cause of action for “negligent repair” is a statutory claim based on a contract warranty.

III.     Conclusion

The Motion is DENIED.