Judge Michael Shultz, Case Number: 23STCV13188, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call.

The complaint alleges that Defendant issued a written warranty to Plaintiff in connection with a 2021 purchase of a 2018 Honda Pilot. Plaintiff alleges the vehicle developed defects within the warranty period that Defendant failed or was unable to repair. Plaintiff alleges four separate violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”) and a fifth cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

Defendant argues that all four alleged violations of the SBA are barred because a used vehicle does not qualify as a “new motor vehicle” for purposes of the SBA. Therefore, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action. The fifth cause of action for breach of implied warranty fails because Plaintiff bought the vehicle from DCH Gardena, not Defendant. The SBA imposes implied warranty obligations on the seller of used vehicles, not the manufacturer.

Defendant timely served Plaintiff with the motion. No opposition has been filed.

Summary judgment is proper “if all the papers submitted 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c subd. (c).) As the moving party, Defendant’s burden is to show that based on the undisputed facts “one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c subd. (p)(2).) If that threshold burden is established, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show a triable issue of one or more material facts. (Code Civ. Proc., §437c(p)(1).)

The court applies the three-step analysis to motions for summary judgment or adjudication: (1) identify the issues framed by the pleading, (2) determine whether the moving party established facts which negate the opponents’ claim, (3) if the moving party meets its threshold burden of persuasion and the burden shifts, determine whether the opposing party has controverted those facts with admissible evidence. (Torres v. Reardon (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 831, 836.)

A. The undisputed facts establish that Plaintiff is not entitled to the remedies under the SBA because he bought a used vehicle without a new warranty issued by Defendant.

The Rodriguez court reasoned that if the Legislature intended to define “new motor vehicle” to include used cars with unexpired new car warranties, it would have done so.

(Id.). While consumers of used car vehicles are provided similar remedies under the Act, "the manufacturer is generally off the hook.” (Rodriguez at *5. ["The Act's remedies for failure to repair a used product in conformity with an express warranty have applicability where the express warranty accompanies the sale of the product. For new products, liability extends to the manufacturer; for used products, liability extends to the distributor or retail seller and not to the manufacturer, at least where the manufacturer has not issued a new warranty or played a substantial role in the sale of a used good." (Id.).

As Plaintiff did not file an opposition, all material facts proffered by Defendant are without dispute. Plaintiff bought a 2018 used vehicle with 29,049 miles on the odometer that was sold simply as a used vehicle. It was not sold as a certified pre-owned vehicle. (UF 1-3.) The vehicle had a 3-year/36,000-mile new vehicle limited warranty and a 5-year/60,000-miles Powertrain Warranty when it was originally leased or sold. (UF 4.) Plaintiff received the balance of both warranties when he bought the vehicle on September 25, 2021. (UF 5.) Defendant did not provide any new warranties at the time Plaintiff bought the 2018 Honda Pilot. (UF 10.) There is no evidence that Plaintiff purchased a certified, pre-owned American Honda vehicle that was newly warranted by Defendant at the time of purchase. (UF 11.)

Accordingly, the undisputed material facts establish that Plaintiff does not have a remedy under the SBA for a used vehicle that was not re-issued a warranty at the time of his purchase.

B. The fifth cause of action for breach of implied warranty fails because Plaintiff bought the vehicle used from DCH Gardena, not Defendant manufacturer.

Implied warranty obligations are owed by distributors or sellers of used goods—not manufacturers of new goods." (Nunez v. FCA US LLC (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 385, 399.) Defendant relies on the same material facts identified above, which establish without that dispute that Defendant manufacturer is not liable for breach of implied warranty of a used vehicle.

[1] "’New motor vehicle’ means a new motor vehicle that is bought or used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes." (Civ. Code, § 1793.22.)