Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV34233, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV34233 Hearing Date: April 17, 2025 Dept: 40
24STCV34233
Marc A. Menowitz v. Rolls-Royce Motor Cars NA, LLC
Thursday,
April 17, 2025
TENTATIVE RULING
I.
BACKGROUND
This
is a typical lemon law case. Plaintiff is Marc A. Menowitz. Defendant is
Rolls-Royce Motor Cars NA, LLC. Plaintiff alleges that in 2024, he leased a
vehicle that was manufactured by Defendant, and that the vehicle has suffered
from numerous and recurring defects.
Plaintiff filed their Complaint on December 27,
2025. Plaintiff alleges five causes of action: 1) Violation of CIV § 1793.2(d);
Violation of CIV § 1793.2(b); Violation of CIV § 1793.2(a)(3); 4) Breach of
Express Warranty; and 5) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability.
II.
ARGUMENTS
A.
Demurrer filed February 3, 2025.
Defendant demurs to all five causes of
action, on the grounds that Plaintiff has not established his standing to bring
this matter. According to the lease agreement, Plaintiff was not the lessee of
this vehicle – ARA II Inc. was. Plaintiff was only the facilitator and
guarantor of the agreement. Defendant
asks the Court to take judicial notice of the lease.
B.
Opposition filed February 6, 2025.
Plaintiff objects to judicial notice of
the lease. Plaintiff also argues this demurrer is improper, as it raises a
dispute of fact. Namely, who purchased the car. Plaintiff also argues that,
even if ARA II Inc. was the purchaser, Plaintiff still has standing under
California case law.
C.
Reply filed April 10, 2025.
Defendant
argues that Plaintiff’s Opposition is based on incorrect and falsified legal
precedent, and therefore the demurrer should be sustained.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A party may demur to a complaint on the
grounds that it “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action.” (CCP § 430.10, subd. (e).) A demurrer tests whether the complaint
states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747
(Hahn).) When considering demurrers, courts accept all well pleaded
facts as true. (Fox v. JAMDAT Mobile, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1068,
1078.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of
the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co.
(2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not
the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the
defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF
Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “The only issue
involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands,
unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn,
supra, at p. 747.)¿
IV.
DISCUSSION
Defendant
demurs to all five causes of action on the basis that Plaintiff Marc Menowitz
lacks standing to bring this case.
1)
Judicial
Notice of the Lease Agreement
Defendant asks the Court to take
judicial notice of the lease agreement. Normally, in a demurrer, analysis would
be limited to the allegations in the complaint.
The court can, however, consider matters properly subject to judicial
notice. (Barnett v. Fireman’s Fund
Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal. App. 4th
500, 505-505 [the court “accepts as true the facts alleged in the complaint,
together with facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly
alleged”].) Here, the lease agreement submitted by Defendants is clearly the
same lease agreement referenced in the Complaint, as both the date and VIN
number in the lease match the date and VIN number alleged in the Complaint. (See Foote Decl. Ex. 1; see
also, Compl. ¶ 5.)
2)
Does
Plaintiff properly allege they have standing?
Defendant argues that Plaintiff has
failed to sufficiently allege standing to bring their five claims against
Defendant.
It
is the Plaintiff's burden to plead that the Song-Beverly Act applies to his
claims. (Dagher v. Ford Motor Co., (2015) 238 Cal. App. 4th 905, 917 (citing
Park City Servs., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 295).)
Under
California law, there are two types of plaintiffs who have statutory standing
to bring Song-Beverly Act claims: (1) an individual whose new motor vehicle is
"bought or used primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes"; and (2) an individual or legal [*17] entity who has "not more than five motor
vehicles . . . registered in this state" and whose new motor vehicle is
bought or used primarily for business purposes with a gross weight "under
10,000 pounds." (Park City Servs., Inc, 144 Cal. App. 4th at
305-06; Dagher, 238 Cal. App. 4th at 920.)
Plaintiff
does allege facts sufficient to establish their standing. Plaintiff alleges
that in 2024, they purchased and/or leased a 2024 Rolls-Royce Spectre from
Defendant. (Compl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff alleges they purchased/leased the vehicle for
“personal, family, or household purposes”. (Id. ¶ 7.)
Defendant
argues that these pleadings are insufficient because, according to the lease,
Plaintiff was not the lessee, ARA II Inc. was the lessee. (Demurrer p.
1:18-20.) 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.
(Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th
97, 113-115.) On a demurrer, a court’s function is limited to testing the legal
sufficiency of the complaint. (Marina Tenants Assn. v. Deauville Marina
Development Co. (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 122, 127.) A demurrer is simply not
the appropriate procedure for determining the truth of disputed facts. (Ramsden
v. Western Union (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 873, 879.)
The
lease agreement referenced in the Complaint provided by Defendant raises a very
serious factual dispute over who leased this vehicle. But a demurrer is not the
proper avenue to litigate factual disputes. Taking the Complaint’s allegations
at face value, Plaintiff has alleged facts to establish standing at the
pleading stage.
Accordingly,
the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s demurrer as to all causes of action.
3) Problematic
Legal Citations
While
this demurrer is overruled, the Court wishes to address problematic aspects of
Plaintiff’s Opposition. In their Opposition, Plaintiff insists that they have
properly alleged standing because “Courts have repeatedly held that a plaintiff
has standing to bring a Song-Beverly Act claim if they personally use and are
financially responsible for the vehicle—regardless of the name on the lease.”
(Opp. pp. 3-4:27-28, 1-2.) Plaintiff cites two cases to support this claim, Dagher
v. Ford Motor Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th, 905, 928, and Nielsen
v. Ford Motor Co., (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 99, 112. Dagher does not support
Plaintiff’s contention and Nielsen does not exist.
Plaintiff’s
reliance on Dagher misplaced and Plaintiff’s characterization of Dagher
is misleading. In their opposition,
Plaintiff writes, “In Dagher, the court held that a plaintiff who
personally used and paid for a vehicle had standing under the Song-Beverly Act,
even though the lease was in a business’s name. The key factor was actual use
and financial burden, not the lessee’s name. (Dagher, supra, 238
Cal.App.4th at 928.)” (Opp. p. 4:4-7.) Dagher does not discuss standing
in the context of a lease on a business’ name. (Ibid.) They do not
reference either “actual use” or “financial burden.” (Ibid.) and they
certainly do not refer to them as “key factors” of their analysis. (Ibid.)
In fact, Dagher is a case about a used car sale where the
Plaintiff was found to not have standing. (Ibid.)
As
to Plaintiff’s citation to authority that does not exist (Nielson v. Ford Motor
Corp., (2007) 150 Cal. App. 4th 112, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED
TO SHOW CAUSE [OSC] why sanctions should not been imposed pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure Section 128.5 for citing to nonexistent case authority. The hearing on the OSC will be held in Department
40, at 8:30 a.m. on April 28, 2025. Plaintiff cited Nielsen v. Ford Motor Co.,
(2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 99 and this case citation does not exist. Plaintiff is ordered to respond in writing
two [2] before the OSC hearing date
CONCLUSION
The
Court OVERRULES Defendant’s demurrer as to all causes of action.