Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV10248, Date: 2024-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV10248    Hearing Date: September 12, 2024    Dept: 34

Garcia Navarro v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (24STCV10248)

Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is OVERRULED. Defendant is ordered to file an Answer within 10 days.

Background[1] 

Plaintiff Sara M. Garcia Navarro (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

On or about March 29, 2023, in exchange for valuable consideration, Plaintiff purchased a 2020 Mercedes-Benz GLA 250 (“Subject Vehicle”), manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant, with corresponding Vehicle Identification Number W1NTG4GB5LU029233. Plaintiff received an express written warranty in which Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Defendant”) undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the Subject Vehicle or to provide compensation if there is a failure in utility or performance for a specified period of time. The warranty provided, in relevant part, that in the event a defect developed with the Subject Vehicle during the warranty period, Plaintiff could deliver the Subject Vehicle for repair services to a repair shop and the Subject Vehicle would be repaired. During the warranty period, the Subject Vehicle contained or developed defects. The defects violate the express written warranties issued by Defendant, as well as the implied warranty of merchantability. Plaintiff provided Defendant sufficient opportunity to service or repair the Subject Vehicle. Defendant was unable and/or failed to service or repair the Vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts

On September 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-10 for:

1.               Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Civil Code § 1793.2(d)

2.               Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Civil Code § 1793.2(b)

3.               Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Civil Code § 1793.2(a)(3)

4.               Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Civil Code §§ 1791.2(a); 1794

5.               Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Civil Code §§ 1791.1; 1794

A Case Management Conference is set for September 12, 2024.

Legal Standard

A demurrer may be made on the grounds that the pleading, inter alia, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) and (f).)

When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 [citations omitted].) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) “[A] demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction placed on an instrument pleaded therein, or facts impossible in law, or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial knowledge.” (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 [citations omitted].)

Discussion

Defendant demurs to all causes of action in Plaintiff’s complaint, on the basis that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Further, Defendant demurs specifically to the Second Cause of Action on a separate ground that Plaintiff failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Demurrer to Entire Complaint

Defendant demurs to the entirety of Plaintiff’s Complaint by suggesting that she fails to state her causes of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act as a matter of law because Plaintiff failed to allege that she purchased a new vehicle. Civil Code section 1793.22(e)(2) defines “new motor vehicle” as follows:

[A] new motor vehicle that is bought or used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. ‘New motor vehicle’ also means a new motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight under 10,000 pounds that is bought or used primarily for business purposes by a person ... or any other legal entity, to which not more than five motor vehicles are registered in this state. ‘New motor vehicle’ includes the chassis, chassis cab, and that portion of a motor home devoted to its propulsion, ... [and] a dealer-owned vehicle and a ‘demonstrator’ or other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer's new car warranty .... A demonstrator is a vehicle assigned by a dealer for the purpose of demonstrating qualities and characteristics common to vehicles of the same or similar model and type.

Plaintiff alleges that she purchased the Subject Vehicle “primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. (Compl., ¶ 7.) Furthermore, the Complaint states that the Subject Vehicle was manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant. (Compl. ¶ 5.) In connection with the purchase, Plaintiff received Defendant’s express written warranty, in which Defendant undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the Subject Vehicle or provide compensation if there is a failure in utility or performance and, in relevant part, provided that Plaintiff could deliver the Subject Vehicle to Defendant’s representatives for repair services in the event that a defect developed with the Subject Vehicle during the warranty period. (Compl. ¶ 9.) During the warranty period, the Subject Vehicle contained or developed defects, which substantially impaired the Subject Vehicle’s use, value, or safety. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-11, 15.) Moreover, despite affording Defendant’s representatives a reasonable number of attempts to service or repair the Subject Vehicle, Defendant’s representatives failed to service and/or repair the Subject Vehicle to conform to the applicable warranties. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14.). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to make available to its authorized service and repair facilities sufficient literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period and that he incurred damages as a result (Compl. ¶¶ 30-31.)

Moreover, Defendant’s reliance on Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209 is unavailing at this time. The Rodriguez court affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment. Here, the court’s obligations consist of “testing the sufficiency of the complaint.” (Childs v. State of California (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 155, 163.) It has done so and finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Whether or not the Subject Vehicle was “new” or not will require the court or a fact finder to make factual determinations. The court will not do so now.

The Demurrer on this ground is OVERRULED.

            Second Cause of Action

Defendant’s separate ground for demurrer focuses exclusively on the Second Cause of Action. Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action alleges that Defendant failed to begin repairs within a reasonable time or to complete them within 30 days. (Calif. Civ. Code §§ 1793.2(b) and 1794(a) [emphasis added].). Defendant contends Plaintiff did not “identify any specific warrant repair presentation.” (Demurrer, at p. 9.) However, a review of the Complaint demonstrates that Plaintiff presented the Subject Vehicle to Defendant’s representative for repairs and it “failed to commence the service or repairs within a reasonable time and failed to service or repair the [Subject] Vehicle within 30 days. (Compl., ¶ 25.) The court finds such an allegation sufficient.

The Demurrer is OVERRULED.