Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 21STCV19953, Date: 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV19953    Hearing Date: February 6, 2023    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

The hearing on Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is CONTINUED to___ [120 days] so the Court may be guided by the Supreme Court ruling on the pending appeal in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5^th 209.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action. The Complaint alleges as follows.

On September 27, 2020 Plaintiffs Leonardo Morones (“Morones”) and Eduardo Garcia (“Garcia”, and together with Morones, “Plaintiffs”) purchased a used 2019 Ford Mustang (the “Subject Vehicle”) manufactured by Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”). (Compl. ¶ 8.) The Subject Vehicle was used and was accompanied by express warranties. (Ibid.)

The Subject Vehicle was delivered to Plaintiffs with serious defects and nonconformities. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs delivered the Subject Vehicle to an authorized Ford repair facility for repair. (Compl. ¶ 22.) Ford was unable to conform the Subject Vehicle to the applicable express warranty despite repeated attempts. (Compl. ¶ 23.) Nonetheless, Ford failed to either promptly replace the new motor vehicle or to make restitution in accordance with the Song-Beverly Consumer Protection Act (“SBA”). (Compl. ¶ 25.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 27, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint asserting three causes of action:

1.    Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty;

2.    Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty; and,

3.    Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2.

On June 24, 2021, Ford filed an Answer.

On November 15, 2022, Ford filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

On December 29, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition.

On January 4, 2023, Ford filed a Reply.

DISCUSSION

I.                MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Ford moves for judgment on the pleadings.

A defendant may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings after filing an answer and the time to demur has expired. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(f)(2).) A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the “complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(c)(1)(B)(ii).) 

Thus, the standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322.) Matters which are subject to mandatory judicial notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be considered without notice to the parties. Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Ibid.) 

Judgment on the pleadings must be denied where there are material factual issues that require evidentiary resolution. The judge hearing the motion cannot consider discovery admissions or other evidence controverting the pleadings. Rather, the pleading under attack must be accepted as true. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(d); Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (2000) 24 Cal.4th 468, 515-516; Lance Camper Mfg. Corp. v. Republic Indem. Co. of America (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 194, 198; Cloud v. Northrop Grumman. Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) 

A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted with or without leave to file an amended complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(h)(1).) If the former, the court shall grant 30 days to the party against whom the motion was granted to file an amended complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(h)(2).) Leave to amend should be granted if there is any reasonable possibility that plaintiff can state good cause of action. (Eckler v. Neutrogena Corporation (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 433.) Leave to amend a complaint is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court. (Haley v. Dow Lewis Motors, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 497.) 

Similar to where a demurrer is sustained, the plaintiff “has the burden of proving the possibility of cure by amendment.” (Czajkowski v. Haskell & White, LLP (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 166, 173, quoting Grinzi v. San Diego Hospice Corp. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 72, 78-79, internal quotations omitted.) 

Here, Ford moves for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the recently decided Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5^th 209 precludes Plaintiffs’ recovery in this action.

1.    Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC

Ford contends that Rodriguez precludes Plaintiffs from recovering under the SBA for their purchase of the used Subject Vehicle.

In Rodriguez, plaintiff purchased a two-year-old vehicle from a third-party retailer. The subject vehicle had over 55,000 miles on its odometer, and though the manufacturer’s basic warranty had expired, the limited powertrain warranty had not. (Rodriguez, 77 Cal.App.5^th at 214.)

The Rodriguez Court determined that a previously owned vehicle with some balance remaining on the manufacturer’s express warranty does not qualify as new under the SBA. (Ibid.) However, the Court explicitly noted that the phrase “’other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty’ . . . functions [] as a catchall for sales of essentially new vehicles where the applicable warranty was issued with the sale.” (Ibid; emphasis original.)

The Rodriguez Court directly distinguished the plaintiff there from the plaintiff in Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1212.) In Jensen, the Court found that a used car with 7,565 miles sold by a manufacturer affiliated dealership qualified as a new vehicle under the SBA as the salesperson “issued a new car warranty with the lease.” (Rodriguez at 224.) The Rodriguez Court, in supporting that distinction, noted that “those facts included a car leased with a full manufacturer’s warranty issued by the manufacturer’s representative. . .” (Ibid.; emphasis original.)

Here, it appears that the Rodriguez decision is on-point and controlling.

However, in Opposition, Plaintiffs note that the California Supreme Court has granted review of Rodriguez, thereby reducing the decision to merely persuasive authority. Plaintiffs argue that the Court should decline to follow Rodriguez and instead follow Jensen, as the Subject Vehicle was sold with only 10,940 miles on the odometer.

The Court can see no reason to rule on this matter when an on-point Supreme Court decision is pending.

Accordingly the hearing on Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is CONTINUED to___ [120 days] so the Court may be guided by the Supreme Court ruling on the pending appeal in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5^th 209.

DATED: February 6, 2023                   ________________________ 

Hon. Robert S. Draper 

Judge of the Superior Court