Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 18STCV06837, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 18STCV06837    Hearing Date: February 3, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Hyundai Motor America  

RESPONDING PARTIES:     Plaintiffs Andres Manzo and Eva Mora

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Andres Manzo and Eva Mora (“Plaintiffs”) filed this lemon law action against defendant Hyundai Motor America (“Defendant”) on December 3, 2018, alleging three causes of action for (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act—breach of express warranty, (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act—breach of implied warranty, and (3) violation of Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2.

On May 18, 2022, the court granted Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiffs’ third cause of action for violation of Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2.

Defendant now moves the court for an order granting its motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ first and second causes of action.

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

The court denies Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for violation of Song-Beverly Act—breach of express warranty because it states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiffs have alleged facts (1) with the requisite particularity, and (2) establishing that their vehicle may be considered a new motor vehicle under the Song-Beverly Act.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii).)  

The court recognizes that the recent case Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209 (“Rodriguez”) concluded that “the phrase ‘other motor vehicles sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty’ refers to cars sold with a full warranty, [and] not to previously sold cards accompanied by some balance of the original warranty.”  (Rodriguez, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 225 [emphasis added].)  However, the California Supreme Court granted a petition for review in Rodriguez.  Thus, while the court may cite Rodriguez for its persuasive value or for the limited purpose of establishing the existence of a conflict in authority, the court may not cite its holding as binding or precedential.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 8.1115, subd. (e)(1).)  The court is therefore not bound to Rodriguez’s conclusion.

Plaintiffs have alleged that (1) they purchased the subject 2014 Hyundai Santa Fe used, but (2) Defendant’s express warranties accompanied the sale of the vehicle to Plaintiffs.  (Compl., ¶ 8.)  “[C]ars sold with a balance remaining on the manufacturer’s new motor vehicle warranty are included within its definition of ‘new motor vehicle.’”  (Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 123.)  The court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that they purchased the used vehicle “with a balance remaining” on the warranty, such that the vehicle may constitute a new motor vehicle under the Song-Beverly Act.  (Ibid.; Compl., ¶ 8.)

The court denies Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for violation of Song-Beverly Act—breach of implied warranty on the ground that Plaintiffs have alleged two separate claims in this cause of action “and is therefore uncertain” because uncertainty is not a ground to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B); Mot., pp. 8:11-15, 11:22-24.)

The court grants Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for violation of Song-Beverly Act—breach of implied warranty because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiffs fail to allege that they were harmed by Defendant’s alleged breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii); Gutierrez v. Carmax Auto Superstores California (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1234, 1246-1247 [“the buyer of consumer goods must plead he or she was injured or damaged by the alleged breach of the implied warranty of merchantability”]; CACI No. 3211 [plaintiff must prove that he or she was harmed by breach of implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose].)

ORDER

The court denies defendant Hyundai Motor America’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiffs Andres Manzo and Eva Mora’s first cause of action for violation of Song-Beverly Act—breach of express warranty.

The court grants defendant Hyundai Motor America’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiffs Andres Manzo and Eva Mora’s second cause of action for violation of Song-Beverly Act—breach of implied warranty.

The court grants plaintiffs Andres Manzo and Eva Mora 10 days leave to file a First Amended Complaint to cure the deficiency with the second cause of action for violation of Song-Beverly Act—breach of implied warranty discussed above.

The court orders defendant Hyundai Motor America to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  February 3, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court