Motion for Attorney Fees
Of note, Defendant Rebecca Elizabeth Pate-Piercy obtained a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge on December 15, 2025. (¶2 of Scott Declaration and Exhibit 1 thereto [ROA No. 186].) It is undisputed that Plaintiff’s judgment against Defendant Rebecca Elizabeth Pate was included within the discharge order, such that “additional fees should not be imposed against her...” (Supplemental Brief: 2:19-20 [ROA No. 184].)
Consequently, the above order is limited to Defendant Bare Bunny, LLC.
59 Emtiaz vs. BMW of North America, LLC
25-01469682 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Defendants BMW of North America, LLC (“BMW NA”) and Sterling Motors, Ltd. d/b/a Sterling BMW (“Sterling BMW”) motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED as to the first cause of action and GRANTED as to the second and third causes of action. Defendants’ unopposed request for judicial notice is granted.
Should Plaintiffs wish to file an amended complaint that addresses the second cause of action as discussed in this ruling, Plaintiffs must file and serve it within 15 days of service of notice of ruling. Leave to amend the third cause of action is denied.
A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint or the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc, § 438 subd. (c)(1)(B).) A non-statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made any time before or during trial. (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.) “Such motion may be made on the same ground as those supporting a general demurrer, i.e., that the pleading at issue fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a legally cognizable claim or defense.” (Id.)
The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Bezirdjian v. O’Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
First Cause of Action for Violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – Breach of Express Warranty
Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d) states, “Except as provided in paragraph (2), if the manufacturer or its representative in this state does not service or repair the goods to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer shall either replace the goods or reimburse the buyer in an amount equal to the purchase price paid by the buyer, less that amount directly attributable to use by the buyer prior to the discovery of the nonconformity.” “Generally, ‘[w]he[n] a party relies for recovery upon a purely statutory liability it is indispensable that he plead facts demonstrating his right to recover under the statute. The Complaint must plead every fact which is essential to the cause of action under the statute.” (Baskin v. Hughes Realty, Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 184, 207.)
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs are the beneficiary of a transferable express warranty attached to the Subject Vehicle by BMW NA, by which BMW NA undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the Subject Vehicle or provide compensation if there was a failure in such utility or performance during the warranty period. (Compl. ¶ 11.) On or about August 30, 2024, and continuing throughout the warranty period, Plaintiffs brought the Subject Vehicle to authorized BMW NA repair facilities on at least three occasions complaining about problems with the Subject Vehicle’s HVAC System. (Id. at ¶ 15.)
Specifically, the HVAC would not blow cold air. (Id.) This resulted in a safety hazard because Plaintiffs are residents of Orange County, California. (Id.) At least two components of the HVAC have been removed and replaced at the time of the Complaint’s filing. (Id.) The repair attempts did not resolve the issues complained about, and the issues with the HVAC system continue to cause impairments to the use, value, and safety of the Subject Vehicle. (Id. at ¶¶ 19, 21.) BMW NA rejected Plaintiff’s request for repurchase under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. (Id. at ¶ 20.)
Although the allegations are not particularly artful, Plaintiffs have alleged the existence of an express warranty, that BMW NA failed to repair the vehicle after three repair attempts, and that BMW NA rejected Plaintiff’s repurchase request. Defendants’ factual arguments may be raised at later stages of the litigation. These allegations are sufficient at this pleading stage. The motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied as to the first cause of action.