Judge: Michael Small, Case: 23STCV06897, Date: 2025-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Case Number: 23STCV06897    Hearing Date: January 23, 2025    Dept: 57

  The Court is not issuing a tentative ruling in advance of today's hearing on Defendant's motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication.   The Court has questions for both sides and will ask them at the hearing.  

For the Plaintiffs, the Court's questions are as follows:

1. Are Plaintiffs contending that there are disputed issues of material fact for the jury to consider as to the validity of the Defendant's repurchase offer?   If so, what are those issues?   Or are the Plaintiffs contending that the repurchase offer is invalid as a matter of law and that is why Defendant's motion should be denied?

2.  In their response to the Defendant's separate statement of material facts, Plaintiffs object that the Customer Care Case Report for the Plaintiffs' vehicle on which Defendant relies for factual support for its contention that the repurchase offer was valid was not attached to the Mejia Declaration -- as it was supposed to be -- that accompanied Defendant's opening papers.  In their brief in opposition to Defendant's motion, however, Plaintiffs make no mention of the failure of Defendant to attach the CCCR to the Mejia Declaration.  The CCCR was attached to a supplemental declaration that accompanied Defendant's reply papers.   Are the Plaintiffs seeking a continuance of the hearing on the motion so that they can file a supplemental responsive separate statement and supplemental opposition brief that addresses the contents of the CCCR?   As Defendant points out in its reply brief, Plaintiffs' counsel had the CCCR even though it was not attached to the Mejia Declaration.

3.  If the Court concludes that Defendant's repurchase offer was valid, then, for purposes of the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of the implied warrant of merchantability, what are the Plaintiffs' damages?   The Court's question here is informed by the recent decision in Carver v.  Volkswagen Group of America (Dec. 26, 2024) 2024 WL 5231562.  

 4.  If the Court concludes that the Defendant's repurchase offer was valid, doesn't this also necessarily mean that Plaintiffs' prayer for the imposition of a civil penalty against Defendant for an alleged willful violation of the Song-Beverly Act fails as a matter of law?

For the Defendant, the Court's questions are this:

1    Is Defendant contending that the repurchase offer that Defendant says was valid vitiates Plaintiffs' implied warranty claim as a matter of law because the offer means that Plaintiffs suffered no damages?  The Court asks that question because Defendant's separate statement would suggest that the repurchase offer means more than that for purposes of the implied warranty claim.  In the Court's view, it is not the case that a valid repurchase automatically negates an implied warranty claim  -- it does so only if the undisputed facts show that a plaintiff suffered no damages on that claim.  The Carver case cited above speaks to this. 

2.  What precedent supports Defendant's contention that because Plaintiffs continued to drive the vehicle after rejecting the repurchase offer, this proves as a matter of law that the vehicle was fit for its intended purpose and therefore the implied warranty claim fails?