Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 22STCV26169, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING.  The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

Case Number: 22STCV26169    Hearing Date: December 15, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   December 15, 2023                                        

CASE NAME:           Laura Pensamiento, et al. v. Ford Motor Company

CASE NO.:                22STCV26169

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

MOVING PARTY:  Defendant Ford Motor Company

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs Laura Pensamiento and Marcelo Fleitas

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      Summary Adjudication of Plaintiff’s Second and Third Causes of Action.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On August 12, 2022, Plaintiffs Laura Pensamiento and Marcelo Fleitas (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant.”) The complaint alleged 3 causes of action: (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability under Song-Beverly Act, (2) Breach of Express Warranty under Song-Beverly Act, and (3) Fraudulent Concealment. The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs leased the Subject Vehicle, a Ford F-150. With the lease, Plaintiffs received written warranties, both express and implied. However, the Subject Vehicle had defects and nonconformities. Plaintiffs delivered the Subject Vehicle to a repair facility and notified Defendants of the defects. After representing that the Subject Vehicle would be repaired, Defendant failed to properly conform Subject Vehicle to the applicable warranties as defects still existed.  

On September 14, 2022, Defendant Ford Motor Company filed an Answer.  

On April 21, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which the court DENIED on September 13, 2023.

On September 28, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Adjudication. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on December 1, 2023. Defendant filed a reply on December 8, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD:

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. Atlantic 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 or cross-defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “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, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)  “Once the defendant or cross-defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff or cross-complainant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)  “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.”  (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)  “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 inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.”  (Id. at p. 467; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) 

ANALYSIS:

Defendant contends it is entitled to summary adjudication of the Second and Third Causes of Action because it offered to repurchase or replace the subject vehicle, there are no facts of a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff, and no facts that Defendant intended to defraud Plaintiffs.

“A party shall not move for summary judgment based on issues asserted in a prior motion for summary adjudication and denied by the court unless that party establishes, to the satisfaction of the court, newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law supporting the issues reasserted in the summary judgment motion.” (CCP § 437c(f)(2)(emphasis added); see also Bagley v. TRW, Inc. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1097 (Bagley).)

Here, Defendant makes the same arguments it did at the prior MSJ hearing. There is no newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change in law warranting bringing this motion again. It appears Defendant simply wishes the court to address the other two arguments previously denied due to counsel’s failure to seek summary adjudication as an alternative to summary judgment.

Accordingly, the court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication in its entirety.

CONCLUSION:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

1.      Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             December 15, 2023                 __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court