Judge: Nathan R. Scott, Case: "Anderson vs. Tesla, Inc.", Date: 2022-07-22 Tentative Ruling
Defendant Tesla Inc.’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
1st cause of action, breach of implied warranty. Defendant met its initial burden to show a complete defense: the statute of limitations. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2) [burden].)
A breach of implied warranty claim accrues upon delivery. (See Kreiger v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 205, 213; Cal. U. Com. Code, § 2725, subd. (2); Cardinal Health 301, Inc. v. Tyco Electronics Corp. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 116, 134; Banke & Segal, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial, Statutes of Limitations (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶ 4:131.)
Here, the undisputed facts show plaintiff filed this case on 11/4/20, more than 4 years after the 9/12/13 delivery. (See Def. SSUF #1, 28.)
Plaintiffs have not met their shifted burden to show a triable issue of material fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2) [burden].)
2nd cause of action, breach of express warranty. Defendant met its initial burden to show a complete defense: the statute of limitations. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2) [burden].)
A breach of express warranty claim can accrue upon discovery of the breach. (See Kreiger, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d at pp. 215-216; Cal. U. Com. Code, § 2725, subd. (2).)
A plaintiff discovers the breach “when the plaintiff reasonably knows or should know that breach has occurred – that is, that the defendant either will not or cannot repair an existing defect.” (Kwon Yi v. BMW of N. Am. LLC (9th Cir. 2020) 805 F.App’x 459, 461; accord Krieger, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 218 [claim accrued when plaintiff “determined that [the dealer] had been unable to repair his car”].)
Here, the undisputed facts show plaintiff actually and reasonably knew the car was defective and defendant could not repair it by September 2015. (See Def. SSUF #33-35.)
Plaintiff agreed at deposition that the panoramic roof issue had become “unreasonable” “prior to” a September 2015 repair visit. (Def. Table of Doc. Evid., Tahsildoost decl., Ex. A [J. Anderson depo] pp. 195-196.) Plaintiff testified that the fifth or sixth repair effort “way exceed[ed] the amount of attempts that should have been made. Yeah. That's far too many.” (Id. at pp. 200.)
At that point, plaintiff had an actual, reasonable suspicion that defendant was unable to repair the car, triggering defendant’s obligation to replace or reimburse. Plaintiffs’ subsequent discovery of the pleaded defects is immaterial to the accrual date, as is defendant’s denial of any defect.
“[S]ummary judgment is proper if the court can draw only one legitimate inference from uncontradicted evidence about the limitations issue.” (Choi v. Sagemark Consulting (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 308, 323-324; accord Stella v. Asset Management Consultants, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 181 [affirming summary judgment on delayed discovery issue].)
Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted. (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (c), (d)(1).)
Plaintiffs’ objections to the Kim declaration are overruled.
Plaintiffs’ objections to defendant’s brief and separate statement are overruled. (Smith, Smith & Kring v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 573, 577-578 [briefs are not evidence]; Grant–Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1378 [“a separate statement is not evidence”].)
Defendant’s objections to the Nita declaration are overruled.
Defendant’s objections to the J. Anderson declaration are sustained as to #3, 14, 15, 19 (hearsay) and 16 (first sentence only, foundation) and otherwise overruled.
Defendant’s objections to the A. Anderson declaration are sustained as to #4 (second sentence only), 13, and 15 (hearsay) and otherwise overruled.
Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend is denied.
Defendant shall give notice.