Judge: Ronald F. Frazier, Case: 37-2021-00014571-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 31, 2023

09/01/2023  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Ronald F. Frazier

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2021-00014571-CU-BC-CTL AHMED VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 06/15/2023

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. (ROA 124.) The court previously granted summary judgment in Defendants' favor on December 22, 2022. However, Plaintiff's new causes of action for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act, as stated in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint filed on December 7, 2022, were not encompassed within that motion. As such, Defendants' second summary judgment motion now challenges these causes of action, which are the only remaining claims in the case.

Defendants make several arguments in support of summary judgment. Defendants first assert Plaintiff failed to comply with the 'Prior Resort' requirements of the Magnuson-Moss Act. (15 U.S.C. § 2310(a).) However, regardless of whether Plaintiff complied with the Prior Resort requirements, the court finds summary judgment is appropriate.

'Magnuson-Moss supplements California law of warranty and establishes a cause of action under the federal act for breach of written warranty.' (Orichian v. BMW North America, LLC (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1332; see also Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 824, 832-33, noting the Magnuson-Moss Act 'authorizes a civil suit by a consumer to enforce the terms of an implied or express warranty' and 'calls for the application of state written and implied warranty law, not the creation of additional federal law, except in specific instances in which it expressly prescribes a regulating rule.') Here, the court adjudicated Plaintiff's claim for breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Act in Defendants' favor in its December 22, 2022 ruling. (ROA 93.) To the extent Plaintiff attempts to re-assert arguments as to why the Song-Beverly claims should have survived, the court declines to reconsider its December 22, 2022 ruling.

Plaintiff argues she may base her Magnuson-Moss claims on the Commercial Code, citing cases such as Orichian and Dagher v. Ford Motor Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 905. (See Orichian at pp. 1332-33, Dagher at p. 928.) However, Plaintiff's Magnuson-Moss claims not based on the Commercial Code.

(SAC at ¶¶ 188-215.) Where Plaintiff has not sufficiently stated a viable state law basis for this cause of action, she has failed to state the claim. (Daugherty at p. 833, holding 'the trial court correctly concluded that the failure to state a warranty claim under state law necessarily constituted a failure to state a claim under Magnuson-Moss.') To that end, the court construes Defendants' motion as a motion for judgment on the pleadings and grants the motion on these grounds.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2923227  3 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  AHMED VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC [IMAGED]  37-2021-00014571-CU-BC-CTL Defendant is to submit a proposed Judgment within (5) days.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2923227  3