Judge Michael T. Smyth, Case Number: 37-2023-00027214-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael T. Smyth, Case: 37-2023-00027214-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-10 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 09, 2024

05/10/2024 09:00:00 AM C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael T. Smyth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00027214-CU-BC-CTL RODRIGUEZ VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, 01/09/2024

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

Defendant's request for judicial notice is granted. Defendant's objections are overruled. As stated at the end of the order, the court will hear from Plaintiff as to whether leave to amend should be granted.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is equivalent to a demurrer. (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064.) All properly pleaded, material facts are deemed true, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law; judicially noticeable matters may be considered. (See Kapsimallis v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 667, 672.) Based on the allegations in the complaint (ROA 1) and the judicially noticed sales contract (see ROA 12, Redfern Decl., Ex. A; ROA 12, RJN), the court finds that Plaintiff cannot maintain his claims because his vehicle is not a 'new motor vehicle' under the Song-Beverly Act.

A 'new motor vehicle' is defined by Civil Code section 1793.22 as (1) a new vehicle bought or used for personal, family, or household purposes; (2) a new vehicle with a gross vehicle weight under 10,000 pounds that is bought or used primarily for business purposes by an individual or entity to which not more than five motor vehicles are registered in this state; or (3) 'a dealer-owned vehicle and a 'demonstrator' or other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer's new car warranty[.]' Plaintiff argues that the third prong covers used vehicles sold with an unexpired manufacturer's warranty. Defendant argues the opposite-that a used vehicle is by its very definition not a 'new motor vehicle.' In Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209, the court of appeal held 'the phrase 'other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer's new car warranty' refers to cars sold with a full warranty, not to previously sold cars accompanied by some balance of the original warranty.' (Id. at 225.) The Rodriguez court reasoned that the catchall language in Section 1793.22 was meant to cover vehicles used by dealerships as service vehicles or loaners prior to sale-not sales of used vehicles.

The court of appeal also explained that an interpretation allowing used vehicles to meet the definition of 'new motor vehicle' would raise more questions than it would answer. For example: '[H]ow would the Act treat a car that was sold by private seller before eventually ending up at a used car dealership? It's clear the Act doesn't cover products purchased in private sales, but if our hypothetical car were purchased from the used car dealership before its warranties expired, would it transform from a used vehicle back to new upon its third sale?' Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3092379 6 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: RODRIGUEZ VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC [IMAGED] 37-2023-00027214-CU-BC-CTL (Id. at 221.) The Rodriguez court explained that treating a used car with an unexpired warranty as new would require determining whether the subsequent buyer would be entitled to the full protections that an original buyer would enjoy. For example, what would constitute a 'reasonable number of attempts' to repair the vehicle for a used buyer who only has a few miles left on the warranty? (Ibid.) 'We would either have to conclude the refund-or-replace remedy is toothless for such buyers or permit them to use previous owners' repair experiences towards their claim.' (Ibid.) Finally, the Rodriguez court also explained that the Song-Beverly Act defines the 'express warranties' covered by Section 1793.22 as 'arising out of a sale' and that an unexpired warranty only transfers to a used buyer by operation of law but does not 'arise out of' the used car sale. (Id. at 222.) Accordingly, the court held 'the phrase 'other motor vehicles sold with a manufacturer's new car warranty' refers to cars sold with a full warranty, not to previously sold cars accompanied by some balance of the original warranty.' (Id. at 225; see also Kuyawa v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (N.D. Cal. March 5, 2024) 2024 WL 950164, *5, *8 [explaining that Dagher v. Ford Motor Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 905, 922-924 and Rodriguez establish that the Song-Beverly 'Act covers non-demonstrator vehicles sold with a balance remaining on the express warranty only when there have been no earlier private owners in the chain of ownership'].) Plaintiff states that Rodriguez was wrongly decided and asks this court to follow Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112 as well-established case law holding that used vehicles may be considered new vehicles under the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiff argues that the Rodriguez court mistakenly believed that the vehicle in Jensen was a demonstrator and that misunderstanding taints the holding of the case. But Rodriguez made no mistake in addressing Jensen, explaining that case involved a manufacturer-affiliated dealership who issued a wholly new express warranty along with sale of the vehicle. Nothing turned on whether the vehicle was a demonstrator or not. Indeed, the Rodriguez court acknowledged that the defendant manufacturer unsuccessfully argued in Jensen that it was not a 'new motor vehicle' because it was not a demonstrator. (Rodriguez, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at 224.) Rodriguez correctly explained how Jensen ought to be cabined to its facts.

Here, there is no allegation of a new warranty and the court finds that without such a new warranty issued at the time of sale, Plaintiff's Song-Beverly claims must be dismissed.

Plaintiff also argues the case should be stayed because the California Supreme Court is currently reviewing the case, but in granting review, the Supreme Court denied requests to depublish the appellate court's opinion and stated that Rodriguez 'may be cited, not only for its persuasive value, but also for the limited purpose of establishing the existence of a conflict in authority that would in turn allow trial courts to exercise discretion . . . to choose between sides of any such conflict.' (Rodriguez v. FCA US (July 13, 2022) 512 P.3d 654 [emphasis added].) The court has also reviewed the recently decided case of Stiles v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (May 2, 2024 B325798) __ Cal.App.5th __ (2024 WL 1925430) but finds it does not sufficiently address the persuasive reasoning of Rodriguez. The court chooses to follow Rodriguez and finds that the Plaintiff's vehicle was not a 'new motor vehicle' for the purposes of the Song-Beverly Act.

For the reasons stated above, the court grants Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court will hear from Plaintiff as to whether leave to amend should be granted if there can be any good faith allegation that a new warranty was issued by Defendant at the time of Plaintiff's purchase.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3092379 6