GONZALEZ vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, et al.

24CV070889: GONZALEZ vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, et al. 07/17/2026 Pre-Trial Conference in Department 23

Tentative Ruling - 07/16/2026 Ruben Sundeen

Plaintiff's MIL No. 1

Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 1 is granted as modified below.

Under the Song-Beverly Act, a Plaintiff need not make “sufficient efforts” to request a repurchase or replacement.

Defendant “manufacturer has an affirmative duty to replace a vehicle or make restitution to the buyer if the manufacturer is unable to repair the new vehicle after a reasonable number of repair attempts, and the buyer need not reject or revoke acceptance of the vehicle at any time. The buyer need only provide the manufacturer with a reasonable opportunity to fix the vehicle.” (Krotin v. Porshe Cas North America Inc. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 294, 303.) In simple terms, Plaintiff has no obligation to request repurchase or replacement.

Therefore, no witnesses may refer to the sufficiency or insufficiency of efforts made by Plaintiffs to obtain repurchase or replacement of the subject vehicle. Each party to inform their witnesses of this ruling.

Plaintiff's MIL No. 2

Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 2 is denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff seeks to prohibit Defendant from contending that it conformed the subject vehicle to warrant within a reasonable number of repair attempts by its repair of a particular component.

The court anticipates that Plaintiff will therefore contend that Defendant did not conform the subject vehicle to warrant within a reasonable number of repair attempts by its repair of a particular component.

Not every customer complaint or repair rises to the level of “nonconformity” invoking the Song- Beverly Act. (Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191, 1211.) More importantly, whether any single repair or multiple repairs conformed the vehicle to warranty is a factual determination to be made by the jury, not by this court.

The court agrees that there may be a basis for excluding some successful repairs under Evidence Code section 352. However, the court is unable to make such a ruling on the present record. Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice. 24CV070889: GONZALEZ vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, et al. 07/17/2026 Pre-Trial Conference in Department 23 Plaintiff's MIL No. 3

Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 3 is denied without prejudice.

Although Plaintiff’s motion provides little authority for the motion, the plain language of the Song-Beverly Act is that repairs reference a “vehicle” rather than a component, such that multiple attempts to repair to conform to warranty apply to the vehicle, and not to any specific component. (Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2).)

However, the reality is less clear. Assuming an issue is resolved upon one repair attempt, and later a new issue arises during a warranty period, does that mean that we immediately leap to replacement or restitution?

Case law appears to support the proposition that the defect must persist after a repair attempt. (Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 985, 989-990 (SBA “designed to give recourse to the buyer of a new automobile that suffers from the same defect repeatedly, or is out of service for cumulative repairs for an extended period”).)

It is conceivable that going to the service department 10 times over 10 different issues within a year may invoke Song-Beverly, even if the defects were corrected with one visit on the previous nine times. Ultimately, the question raised by Plaintiff’s motion appears to be the province of the jury to decide. Moreover, whether “defects/components repaired after a single attempt are not counted for under the Song-Beverly Act” can be addressed through jury instructions.

For these reasons, the motion is denied.

Defendant's MIL No. 1

Defendant’s motion in limine is granted.

Defendant’s motion seeks to exclude two things: (1) eight successful repairs made between 9/19/2029 and 1/3/2024, during which the car was driven over 64,000 miles, and (2) vehicle complaints Plaintiff never presented for repair.

While the court understands the parties are negotiating this issue, the court nevertheless notes that no opposition has been filed.

The motion shows that only two of the eight repairs involve potential safety issues (vehicle downshifting and mirror adjustment); and the other six include the following: two involve check engine light issues, two rattle and noise issues, and a hood and a fuel door issue.

Case law support the proposition that the defect must persist after a repair attempt. (Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 985, 989-990 (SBA “designed to give recourse to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV070889: GONZALEZ vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, et al. 07/17/2026 Pre-Trial Conference in Department 23 the buyer of a new automobile that suffers from the same defect repeatedly, or is out of service for cumulative repairs for an extended period”).) Therefore, prior successful repairs are of limited probative value.

In addition, the court believes that the probative value of these eight prior successful repairs that occurred over the course of over 4 and a half years and 64,000 miles, is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, and wasting time. (Evid. Code § 352.)

For these reasons, Defendant’s motion in limine is granted. Each party to inform their witnesses of this ruling.

Defendant's MIL No. 2

Defendant’s motion in limine No. 2 is granted.

Defendant’s motion seeks to exclude evidence or argument concerning the costs of vehicle use. The motion is unopposed.

The general rule is that “standard ownership or use costs—like gas, car washes, or oil changes— will normally not qualify as incidental damages.” (Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2020) 9 Cal.5th 966, 979. Given Plaintiff’s use of the vehicle over 4 and a half years and 64,000 miles, there appears to be no basis for deviating from this general rule.

Accordingly, the court finds the evidence of costs of use as not relevant (Evid. Code § 350), and to the extent is may be relevant, such evidence is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, and wasting time, (Evid. Code § 352).

For these reasons, Defendant’s motion in limine is granted. Each party to inform their witnesses of this ruling.