Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 24TRCV01288, Date: 2024-10-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV01288, Date: 2024-10-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24TRCV01288 Hearing Date: October 9, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: October 9, 2024

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 24TRCV01288

¿¿

CASE NAME: Leticia Rodriguez Reyes v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al.

¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Defendant American Honda Motor Company

¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Leticia Rodriguez Reyes

¿¿

TRIAL DATE: None.

¿¿

MOTION:¿ Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

Tentative Rulings: SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

This action arises out of a warranty agreement between Plaintiff Leticia Rodriguez Reyes (Plaintiff), Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (Defendant), and Does 1 through 10. The FAC alleges that on October 22, 2018, Plaintiff entered into a warranty contract with Defendant regarding a 2019 Honda Odyssey (Vehicle) that Defendant manufactured and distributed.

Plaintiff filed this action on April 15, 2022. Plaintiff alleges four breach of warranty claims under the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiff alleges that several defects and nonconformities arose in the Vehicle during the warranty period including electrical defects, engine defects, and transmission defects. Plaintiff alleges she presented the Vehicle to Defendant’s authorized repair facilities seven (7) times between 2019 and 2023. After each repair, the facility represented to the Plaintiff that the Vehicle had been repaired. Plaintiff alleges that despite these efforts, the Vehicle continued to exhibit defects and nonconformities.

B. Procedural

On June 24, 2024, Defendant demurred to Plaintiff’s third alleged cause of action for breach of express warranty under Civil Code 1793.2(a)(3).

On July 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint (FAC).

On September 6, 2024, Defendant again demurred to Plaintiff’s third alleged cause of action for breach of express warranty under Civil Code 1793.2(a)(3).

On September 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s demurrer.

¿II. MEET AND CONFER

¿¿

A demurring party must “meet and confer” in person or by telephone conference with the opposing party at least five (5) days prior to the deadline for a responsive pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41.)

Here, Defendant offers the Declaration of Samantha M. Geraghty, Defendant’s counsel, to show compliance with section 430.41. (Declaration of Samantha M. Geraghty.) Geraghty asserts that Defendant’s counsel of record attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel prior to filing this motion. (Id. ¶¶ 2-4.) On July 15, 2024, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel a letter requesting to meet and confer about the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s third cause of action no later than August 2, 2024. (Id.; Exhibit 1 “Meet and Confer Letter – July 15, 2024,” pp. 1-2.) The letter also described Defendant’s issues with Plaintiff’s third cause of action. (Id. p. 1.) Plaintiff did not respond.

The Court finds that the meet-and-confer requirement has been met.

¿III. ANALYSIS¿

A. Legal Standard ¿

A party may demur on the basis that a complaint fails to state a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (e).) A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) A demurrer is treated as “admitting all material facts properly pleaded,” but not the truth of “contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.” (Tindell v. Murphy (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1239, 1247; Aubry v. Tri-Defendants Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) Questions of plaintiff’s ability to prove unlikely allegations are of no concern. (Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 213-214.)

Because a demurrer tests only the legal sufficiency of the pleading, the Court accepts as true even the most improbable alleged facts, and the Court does not concern itself with the plaintiff’s ability to prove its factual allegations. (Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 949, 958.) “‘Facts appearing in exhibits attached to the first amended complaint also are accepted as true and are given precedence, to the extent they contradict the allegations.’” (Paul v. Patton (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1091.) ¿

B. Discussion

Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for breach of express warranty under Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3).

Plaintiff’s third cause of action alleges Defendant violated breached an express warranty under Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3) by failing to make “available to its authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period.” (FAC, ¶ 57.)

To plead a cause of action for breach of an express warranty, a party “must allege the exact terms of the warranty, plaintiff’s reasonable reliance thereon, and a breach of that warranty which proximately causes plaintiff injury.” (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 142.)

Defendant demurs arguing that Plaintiff does not plead facts indicating what parts or literature were not available to the repair facilities. (Demurrer, pg. 3:26-27.) Defendant also argues that Plaintiff alleges general statements of law without alleging specific facts or damages beyond “a single conclusory statement that damages were suffered.” (Id. at pg. 2:13-14.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that her allegations describing each specific repair is sufficient to show Defendant did not provide sufficient parts or literature to its authorized repair facilities. (Opposition, pg. 2:6-9, citing FAC, ¶¶ 22-28.) Plaintiff also contends that because the attempted repairs failed to fix the Vehicle’s issues, the Court can infer based on Plaintiff’s pleadings that the “literature and/or parts provided by HONDA were insufficient to effect attempted repairs as required by section 1793.2(a)(3).” (Id. pg. 2:13-15.)

Plaintiff also attempts to include additional facts in its opposition to prove the repair facilities were without ample literature or parts to effect repairs:

HONDA’s authorized repair facility, Sunnyvale HONDA, found specific diagnostic codes and performed repairs based on HONDA’s literature and parts. Buena Park HONDA even contacted HONDA for additional information. However, the attempted repairs did not resolve the problem, and the audio-visual display screen continues to intermittently go black and/or blank and there is static noise when the vehicle is in use. (Opposition, pg. 2:9-13.)

Plaintiff attempts to add these facts in her opposition which undercut her cause of action by showing Defendant did provide literature and parts that repair facilities could use to repair the Vehicle. However, demurrers focus solely on the factual allegations within the complaint.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s factual allegations do not adequately support her third cause of action for express warranty under Civil Code section 1793.2, subd. (a)(3). Plaintiff alleges she took the Vehicle to several authorized facilities for repairs on seven occasions, but after each repair, the Vehicle defects continued. Plaintiff does not allege any facts identifying whether the “literature or parts” were insufficient, only that the Court should infer insufficiency based on the facts alleged. However, the Court must rule based on the allegations in the complaint, not based on “contentions, deductions or conclusions of law” or other inferences. (Tindell v. Murphy (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1239, 1247.) Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to allow the Court to rule in her favor.

Accordingly, the Court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s third cause of action, with leave to amend.

IV. CONCLUSION¿¿

Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Plaintiff has 20 days to amend its First Amended Complaint for the third cause of action for under Civil Code section 1793.2, or to move forward on only the first two causes of action.

¿¿