Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV30713, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30713     Hearing Date: April 5, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Moving Party: Defendant Kia America, Inc.

Resp. Party:    Plaintiff Anthony Camacho

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.  

BACKGROUND:

On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff Anthony Camacho filed his Complaint against Defendant Kia America, Inc. on causes of action arising from the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

On January 22, 2024, Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint.

On March 11, 2024, Defendant filed its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

On March 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Opposition to the Motion. Plaintiff concurrently filed his Request for Judicial Notice.

On March 26, 2024, Defendant filed its Reply in support of the Motion.

ANALYSIS:

I.          Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the Complaint filed in this matter.

The Court DENIES as superfluous judicial notice of this item. Any party that wishes to draw the Court’s attention to an item filed in this action may simply cite directly to the document by execution and filing date. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(d).)

II.       Legal Standard

“A party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (b)(1).)

The motion provided for in this section may only be made on one of the following grounds: . . . (B) If the moving party is a defendant, that either of the following conditions exist: (i) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint. (ii) The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B).)

“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.” (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999, citations omitted.)

“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.)

III.     Discussion

Defendant moves the Court to grant judgment on pleadings regarding the third cause of action (violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3)) in the Complaint, without leave to amend the Complaint. (Motion, p. 4:19–23.) Defendant argues that this would be appropriate because Plaintiff did not allege any facts in support of this cause of action. (Id. at p. 3:18–19.)

        The Court disagrees with this argument.

        “Every manufacturer of consumer goods sold in this state and for which the manufacturer has made an express warranty shall: . . . Make available to authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period.” (Civ. Code, § 1793.2, subd. (a)(3).)

        Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that Defendant did not make available to the privately-owned service and repair shops sufficient service literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period. (Complaint, ¶ 30.)

        This allegation is sufficiently specific for the third cause of action to withstand a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

IV.      Conclusion

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.