Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV24887, Date: 2025-02-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24887    Hearing Date: February 4, 2025    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 2-4-25

Case # 23STCV24887

Trial Date: 8-4-25 c/f 4-1-25

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Michael Anthony Ojeda

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication

·         1^st Cause of Action: Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2

·         2^nd Cause of Action: Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2

·         3^rd Cause of Action: Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2

·         4^th Cause of Action: Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – Breach of Express Written Warranty

·         5^th Cause of Action: Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability

SUMMARY OF ACTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 8, 2023, Plaintiff Michael Anthony Ojeda purchased a 2019 Volkswagen Atlas vehicle. Plaintiff alleges the vehicle suffers from defective body, powertrain, safety, electrical, braking, and noise systems.

On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, Breach of Express Written Warranty, and Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability. Defendant answered on November 22, 2023.

RULING: Granted.

Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Volkswagen) moves for summary judgment and alternatively summary adjudication on the five individual causes of action for Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, Breach of Express Written Warranty, and Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability. The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply on file at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

The pleadings frame the issues for motions, “since it is those allegations to which the motion must respond. (Citation.)” (Scolinos v. Kolts (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 635, 640-641; FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 382-383; Jordan-Lyon Prods., LTD. v. Cineplex Odeon Corp. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1472.) The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)  “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) 

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Ibid.)

A defendant may alternatively move for summary judgment on grounds that Plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence, and cannot reasonably obtain necessary evidence in support of the claims.¿(Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th at pp. 854-855; Collin v. CalPortland Co. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 582, 587; Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96, 101; Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 590.) The court adheres to this standard for product liability cases, such as asbestos and crystalline silica (e.g. latent exposure leading to mesothelioma or silicosis).

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inference that may be drawn form that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) “An issue of fact can only be created by a conflict in the evidence.  It is not created by speculation, conjecture, imagination or guesswork.”  (Lyons v. Security Pacific National Bank (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1041 (citation omitted).)

Volkswagen moves for relief on grounds that Plaintiff only presented the vehicle once for an opportunity to address the defects, the report indicates no warrantied defects, and Plaintiff otherwise never sought additional warranty repairs. Plaintiff therefore fails to comply with the Song-Beverly requirements of a plural number (more than one) of repair attempts. (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 798-799; Silvio v. Ford Motor Co. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1208.) The lack of a repair effort record, and otherwise any evidence of a defects further undermines the complaint. (Paduano v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1453, 1467-68.)

The evidence from Volkswagen supports only one visit and no documented, covered warranty items. [Declarations of Chris Lewis and Antonio Cruz.] The court finds the evidence and supporting case law shifts the burden of proof. Plaintiff submits no opposition to the summary judgment, and therefore fails to raise any triable issues of material fact. The court therefore GRANTS the unopposed motion for summary judgment.

The motion to compel deposition scheduled for June 9, 2025, the July 24, 2025, final status conference, and August 4, 2025, trial date are all vacated. Volkswagen to submit a judgment.

Volkswagen to give notice.