Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 19STCV21462, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT SE-C LAW & MOTION PROCEDURES ARE AS FOLLOWS: APPEARANCES: The Court will hear oral arguments on all matters at the scheduled time of hearing. If all counsel intend to submit on the Tentative Order and do not want oral argument, please advise the clerk, in Department “C”, by calling (562-345-3702). If all sides submit on the Tentative Order and the clerk is so advised, the Tentative Order will become the final order of the court and the prevailing party shall give written Notice of Ruling per CRC 3.1312. If the Moving and Responding parties do not agree to submit on the Tentative Order, the motion will be called as calendared for hearing. There is no need to contact Department “C”, as the matter will remain on calendar for hearing. If the Moving party does not call Department “C” to submit on the Tentative Order and there is no appearance by any party, then the motion(s), at the Court’s discretion, may be taken off calendar without ruling on the motion(s). ORDERS: The minute order reflecting the Court’s Order will constitute the final Order. No additional orders should be submitted to the Court for signature unless required by law or by the Court. Prevailing party shall give written Notice of Ruling per CRC 3.1312. Minute orders, which constitute the final Order of the Court, will only be sent to the parties via U.S. mail  for the following: OSC re: sanctions, OSC re: contempt or matters taken under submission after oral arguments or briefing. Counsel or parties may request copies of all other minute orders/final orders either at the clerk’s office or in writing. If a request is in writing, a self-addressed stamped envelope and the appropriate fee for copies shall be submitted.

Case Number: 19STCV21462    Hearing Date: October 4, 2022    Dept: SEC

HUANG v. TESLA, INC.

CASE NO.:  19STCV21462

HEARING:  10/4/22 @ 1:30 PM

 

#5

TENTATIVE RULING

 

Defendant Tesla, Inc.’s motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiff Helen Huang is DENIED as to Issues 1-2, and GRANTED as to Issue 3.

 

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

 

 

Defendant Tesla, Inc. moves for summary adjudication pursuant to CCP § 437c.

 

Pleadings and Procedural History

 

Plaintiffs’ operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges that on September 29, 2018, Huang purchased a 2018 Model X vehicle from Defendant Tesla, Inc.  (FAC, ¶ 37.)  On December 24, 2018, at 11:30 p.m., the vehicle made a Sudden Unintended Acceleration (“SUA”) while Plaintiff was fully stopped at her security gate.  (FAC, ¶¶ 41-43.)  The vehicle accelerated at full power through the gate, swerved to the right, and crashed into a block wall toward her neighbor’s house.  (FAC, ¶ 43.)  Plaintiffs Kao and Lee were passengers in the vehicle.  (Id.)  Based thereon, the FAC asserts causes of action for:

 

1.    Negligence

2.    Violation of CLRA (CC § 1750)

3.    Violation of B&P Code § 17200

4.    Breach of Express Warranties

5.    Violation of Song-Beverly for Breach of Express Warranties (CC § 1793.2(d) & 1791.2)

6.    Violation of Song-Beverly for Breach of Implied Warranties (CC § 1792, 1791.1)

 

Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication was originally scheduled for June 2, 2022, but was continued multiple times to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to conduct discovery.  On September 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Opposition and Separate Statement.

 

Standard

 

A defendant moving for summary judgment/adjudication has met its burden of showing a cause of action has no merit if the defendant can show one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established.  (CCP § 437c(p)(2).)

 

ISSUES 1-2

 

Tesla contends that it is entitled to summary adjudication of the 2nd cause of action for violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) and the 3rd cause of action for Unfair Business Practices because Plaintiff’s factually devoid discovery responses demonstrate that she does not possess any evidence to support her allegations against Tesla.

 

When the plaintiff has had an adequate opportunity for discovery, the plaintiff’s factually devoid responses to discovery may be relied on to show that one or more elements of the plaintiff’s claim cannot be established for summary judgment purposes.  (Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 592-593.)  A moving party may rely on factually devoid discovery to shift the burden of proof.  (CCP § 437c(o)(2).)

 

Defendant submits Plaintiff’s responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 26–31 and Request for Production No. 26.  Special Interrogatories Nos. 26-31 asked Plaintiff to state all facts and identify all witnesses and documents that support her contention that Tesla violated the CLRA and the UCL. (Issues 1-2, Defense Separate Statement (“DSS”) 3 and 10.)  Request for Production No. 26 asked Plaintiff to produce all documents in support of her contention that Tesla violated the CLRA and the UCL. (DSS 7 and 14.) 

 

In response to special interrogatories Nos. 26-31, Plaintiff responded that “on or about December 24, 2018, the Vehicle exhibited sudden unintended acceleration (“SUA”).  When Ms. Huang arrived home, a security gate which was programmed to automatically open when the Vehicle approaches did not work.  Ms. Huang fully stopped the Vehicle at the gate to manually open it by touching the screen in the Vehicle.  Ms. Huang at no time commanded the acceleration by pressing on the accelerator pedal.  Within a second, however, the Vehicle accelerated at full power through the gate, swerved to the right, and crashed into a block wall toward her neighbor’s house.  Because Plaintiff never pressed on the gas pedal during the subject incident occurred, Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle had a defect on its computerized system that controls acceleration of the vehicle.  Also, Plaintiff claims that the vehicle’s gate opening setting was not functioning just before the accident occurred.  In addition, Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle’s Automatic Emergency Braking system failed to function at the time of the unintended acceleration incident.”  (Preciado Decl., Ex. D, 24:18-25:2, 28:8-20.)  When asked to identify witnesses that could support her claims, Plaintiff responded, “Defendant’s engineers and employees who were aware of the sudden unintended acceleration issues with Tesla’s vehicles and who have communicated with NHTSA regarding same.” (Id. at 26:17-19 and 30:12-14.)  When asked to identify documents that support her claims, Plaintiff identified “Huang 000001–32, 100–107, and 110–122,” about 50 pages comprised of counsel’s pre-litigation demand letter, purchase documents, photographs of the crash scene, insurance records, and storage facility records. (Id. at 27:12-13 and 31:9-10.)  The responses were accompanied by a sworn verification executed by Helen Huang, based on personal knowledge. 

 

The court finds that the responses are not devoid of facts.  Although Tesla contends that it is a repeat of her allegations in the FAC, the responses provide specific facts about the incident, and Huang verifies that she never pressed the accelerator pedal.  The burden therefore does not shift to Plaintiff based on devoid discovery responses.

 

Tesla merely argues that the burden shifts to Plaintiff, but does not provide alternative analysis in the event the burden does not shift. 

 

Accordingly, the court finds that triable issues exist regarding whether the vehicle had “characteristics,” “uses,” or “benefits” that “they do not have” and/or “advertising goods” “with intent not to sell them as advertised.”  (CC § 1770(a)(5) and (a)(9).)  Based thereon, triable issues also exist regarding whether Tesla violated the UCL.  Summary adjudication of Issues 1-2 is DENIED.

 

ISSUE 3

 

Defendant contends that it is entitled to summary adjudication of the 5th cause of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Breach of Express Warranty) because she never “presented” her vehicle to Tesla for a warranty repair—as required by CC § 1793.2(d)(2).

 

To establish a cause of action under CC § 1793(d)(2), Plaintiff must establish that she “presented” her vehicle to Tesla for warranty repairs at least twice (among other elements).

 

Here, Plaintiff presented her vehicle to Tesla only one time, and it was not for a warranty service or a repair at all.  Plaintiff asked Tesla to install a rear license plate frame, which Tesla did as a customer courtesy.  (Issue 3, DSS 2.)  In response to DSS 2, Plaintiff contends that she called the service center, and admits that she moved the car to a third party location.  (Disputed DSS 2.)  Plaintiff produces absolutely no evidence that she presented her vehicle to Tesla for any repairs following the December 24, 2018 incident. 

 

Accordingly, because Plaintiff never presented her vehicle to Tesla for repairs covered by warranty, Plaintiff’s Song-Beverly cause of action fails as a matter of law.  (Silvio v. Ford Motor Company (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1205.)

 

Accordingly, summary adjudication of Issue 3 is GRANTED.