Judge Michael Small, Case Number: 23STCV29432, Date: 2024-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Mark Kim ("Kim") has sued Defendant Kia America, Inc. ("Kia") for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("the Song-Beverly Act") arising from Kim's purchase and/or lease of a 2022 Kia Sportage automobile ("the Subject Vehicle") that Kim alleges was manufactured and/or distributed by Kia and that contained or developed multiple defects. Kim alleges that Kia violated the Song-Beverly Act because it was unable and/or failed to service or repair the defects in the Subject Vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts during the warranty period applicable to the Subject Vehicle in breach of the express warranty that Kia made to Kim regarding the Subject Vehicle.

For present purposes, the most pertinent aspect of Kim's complaint is the third cause of action, which asserts that Kia failed to comply with a provision of the Song-Beverly Act that requires manufacturers of consumer goods for which the manufacturer has made an express warranty to "make available to authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the warranty period." (Civil Code Section 1793.2(a)(3).) Kia has moved for judgment on the pleadings on that cause of action. It contends that the complaint fails to allege any facts that would support Kim's assertion that Kia did not make available to its service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and replacement parts. The absence of supporting allegations for the third cause of action, says Kia, runs afoul of the principle that causes of action that assert a violation of a statute must be pleaded with factual specificity and cannot merely parrot the language of the statute

The Court agrees with Kia and is granting its motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend. The third cause of action in Plaintiff's complaint rests on a naked assertion that Kia violated the literature and replacement parts requirement of Section 1793.2(a)(3). Plaintiff alleges no facts to back up that assertion. In its opposition to Kia's motion, Plaintiff contends that his allegation that Kia failed to service or repair the Subject Vehicle after multiple attempts during the warranty period "is a strong implication of Plaintiff's allegation that [Kia] failed to make available to its authorized service and repair facilities sufficient literature and/or replacement parts." (Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, at page 5, lines 2-4). Plaintiff's contention is incorrect. Just because Kia allegedly breached its express warranty to Kim by failing to service or repair the Subject Vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts during the applicable warranty period (a claim that is supported by sufficient factual allegations) does not inextricably mean that Plaintiff also breached its obligation to provide sufficient literature and replacement parts to its service and repair facilities (a claim that is not supported by sufficient factual allegations).