Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 23PSCV00005, Date: 2023-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00005    Hearing Date: April 19, 2023    Dept: L

Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is OVERRULED.

 

Background   

 

Plaintiff Roger Granger (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: On September 12, 2014, Plaintiff entered into a warranty contract with Defendant Ford Motor Company (“FMC”) regarding a 2014 Ford F-150, VIN No. 1FTFW1CT6EFA30631 (“subject vehicle”). The subject vehicle has defects with its electrical system, engine, steering, transmission, infotainment system and HVAC, which FMC has failed to adequately repair.

 

On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-10 for:

 

1.      Violation of Subdivision (d) of Civil Code Section 1793.2

2.      Violation of Subdivision (b) of Civil Code Section 1793.2

3.      Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2

4.      Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civil Code §§ 1791.1, 1794, 1795.5)

5.      Negligent Repair

 

A Case Management Conference is set for May 23, 2023.

 

Legal Standard

 

A demurrer may be made on grounds that the pleading, inter alia, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and/or is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) and (f).) a demurrer may also be made, in an action founded upon a contract, on the basis that it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (g).)

 

When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 [citations omitted].) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) “[A] demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction placed on an instrument pleaded therein, or facts impossible in law, or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial knowledge.” (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 [citations omitted].)

 

“[F]or a demurrer based on the statute of limitations to be sustained, the untimeliness of the lawsuit must clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint and matters judicially noticed.” (Coalition for Clean Air v. City of Visalia (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 408, 420.)

 

Discussion

 

FMC demurs to the first through fourth causes of action in Plaintiff’s complaint.

 

Statute of Limitations

 

FMC first claims that the first through fourth causes of action are time-barred by the four-year statute of limitations set forth in Commercial Code § 2725; this section provides, in relevant part, as follows: “(1) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued. . . (2) A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party's lack of knowledge of the breach. A breach of warranty occurs when tender of delivery is made, except that where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods and discovery of the breach must await the time of such performance the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered.”

 

Here, Plaintiff has alleged that she entered into a warranty contract with FMC regarding the subject vehicle on or about September 12, 2014 (Complaint, ¶¶ 8-9, Exh. A). Plaintiff has attached the warranty to the complaint, which includes a 3 year/36,000 mile bumper-to-bumper warranty and 5 year/60,000 mile powertrain warranty.

 

FMC argues that the statute of limitations on all of Plaintiff’s claims against FMC ran, at the latest, by May 25, 2022, or four years after Plaintiff alleges, in Paragraph 20, the subject vehicle already had 71,690 miles on the odometer (such that the 5 year/60,000 mile powertrain warranty must have expired by that time). 

 

FMC, however, has made no attempt to discuss Paragraphs 33-44 set forth under the heading “TOLLING OF THE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS” of Plaintiff’s complaint, including allegations of class action tolling, discovery rule tolling and the repair doctrine.

 

The demurrer, then, is overruled on statute of limitations grounds.

 

Third Cause of Action (i.e., Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2)

 

FMC next claims that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for violation of Civil Code § 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3); this section provides, in relevant part, that “[e]very manufacturer of consumer goods sold in this state and for which the manufacturer has made an express warranty shall:. . . (3) Make available to authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period.”

 

Here, Plaintiff has alleged that FMC “failed to make available to its authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period.” (Complaint, ¶ 57.) Plaintiff has alleged that FMC’s authorized repair facilities performed various repairs on the subject vehicle (Id., ¶¶ 16-23) and that, despite this, Plaintiff thereafter “continued to experience symptoms of the various defects. . . despite Defendant’s representations that the various defects were repaired” (Id., ¶ 24). These allegations, taken together, indicate that the literature and/or replacement parts were insufficient and that Plaintiff suffered damages as a result.

 

The demurrer is overruled as to the third cause of action.