Venegas vs. Ford Motor Company

210 Venegas vs. Defendant Ford Motor Company’s (Ford) motion for Ford Motor summary judgment or summary adjudication in the Company alternative is DENIED.

The Court declines to rule on Ford’s evidentiary objections. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (q).)

1st cause of action (breach of express warranty): Ford failed to meet its initial burden that Plaintiff cannot establish the elements of the breach of express warranty claim. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 825, 851 [burden]; Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 152 [elements].) Specifically, Ford’s own evidence shows Plaintiff presented the vehicle for repair to Ford’s authorized repair facility on at least six occasions. (See Defendant Ford’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (DSS) 10, 16-20; Oregel v.

American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1103 [the mere presentation of the vehicle to Ford’s authorized repair facility counts as opportunity to repair].) There is no evidence the issues for which the Plaintiff presented the vehicle fell outside the coverage of Ford’s warranty. The fact that the repairs were not submitted for “warranty reimbursement” does not establish that the alleged defects fell outside the scope of Ford’s warranty. While Ford contends the modifications of the subject vehicle by Tuscany voided Ford’s warranty, including as to the engine and suspension, the evidence to which Ford cites is nonexistent. (See DSS 7 [website page no longer exists].)

2nd cause of action (implied warranty): Ford failed to meet its initial burden the subject vehicle was “in safe condition and substantially free of defects.” (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 825, 851 [burden]; Isip v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2007)

155 Cal.App.4th 19, 24, 27 [fitness for the ordinary purpose of a vehicle means the vehicle is “in safe condition and substantially free of defects”].)

3rd cause of action (violation of Civ. Code § 1793, subd. (b)): Ford failed to meet its initial burden showing Ford’s authorized dealerships commenced repairs within a reasonable time after Plaintiff presented the vehicle for repairs. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 825, 851 [burden]; Civ. Code § 1793.2, subd. (b).) As discussed above, Ford failed to produce sufficient evidence that the issues for which Plaintiff presented the vehicle to Ford’s authorized dealerships were not covered by Ford’s warranty.

---

Defendant Ted Jones Ford, Inc. dba Ken Grody Ford Buena Park’s (Ken Grody) motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Ken Grody’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d).)

Ken Grody’s evidentiary objections to the declaration of Olga L. Ponce is OVERRULED as to nos. 1, 2, 6-11 and SUSTAINED as to nos. 3-5 based on lack of personal knowledge.

Ken Grody’s evidentiary objections to the declaration of Roque Venegas is OVERRULED as to nos. 1, 8-15 and SUSTAINED as to nos. 2-7, 16- 22 based on relevance, lack of personal knowledge and/or improper expert opinion.

4th cause of action (negligent repair): Ken Grody met its initial burden Plaintiff cannot establish breach of the applicable standard of care. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic

Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 825, 851 [burden]; Sabicer v. Ford Motor Company (C.D. Cal. 2019) 362 F.Supp.3d 837, 840 [elements]; Defendant Ken Grody’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (DSS) 12-14.)

Plaintiff failed to meet his shifted burden to show a triable issue of fact. (See Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 851 [burden]; Response to DSS 12-14; Webster v. Claremont Yoga (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 284, 288- 289 [the plaintiff’s failure to present expert testimony to contradict defense expert’s opinions entitles the defendant to summary judgment].) To the extent Plaintiff argues there are triable issues as to the “negligent diagnosis, inspection and release” of the subject vehicle, these facts are not alleged in the Complaint.” (See Compl. ¶¶ 70-72; Nieto v. Blue Shield of Calif. Life & Health Ins. Co. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 60, 74 [the pleadings determine the scope of relevant issues on a summary judgment motion].)

Plaintiff’s request for a continuance is DENIED because the information sought is irrelevant to the issues raised by this motion and Plaintiff lacked diligence in discovering facts earlier. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (h).)

Defendant Ken Grody shall prepare a proposed judgment within 10 days and give notice.

211 Aghawani vs. Before the Court is a Motion to Place Documents Vershinin Under Seal filed by plaintiff Lamis Aghawani. The Dental hearing is CONTINUED to August 17, 2026 at Corporation 1:30 p.m. in Dept. C24, as set forth herein.

A party requesting a court record be filed under seal “must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.” (Cal. R. Ct. 2.551(b)(1).) “The motion or application must be