Randy Kohn vs Ford Motor Company et al

Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 07/10/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion for Summary Judgment Tentative Ruling For all reasons stated herein, the hearing on defendants' motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication is continued to August 7, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in this department. Defendants may file and serve a reply on or before July 27, 2026.

Background/Analysis: On April 6, 2026, defendant Ford Motor Company moved for summary adjudication on the first, fourth, and sixth causes of action in the first amended complaint and defendant Perry Ford Mazda moved for summary judgment. The hearing on defendants' motion was set for this hearing on July 10.

On June 26, 2026, plaintiff filed his opposition.

On June 29, 2026, defendants filed an objection to plaintiff's opposition noting that the opposition was untimely. Defendants argued they had insufficient time to file a reply and requested that the opposition not be considered or, in the alternative, that the hearing on defendants' motion be continued to a later date.

After considering the objections filed by defendants, the court will continue the hearing on defendants' motion to August 7, 2026. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (a)(3).) Defendants may file and serve a reply on or before July 27, 2026. (See id., subd. (b)(4).)

Tentative Ruling: Juliette Lee vs Marla Daily et al

On February 26, 2026, attorney Albert Chang and Law Offices of Albert Chang, filed these motions to be relieved as counsel for defendants Lokman Babu and Jamuna-CA, Inc. Good cause appearing, these motions are both granted. The orders granting relief are effective upon the filing of proofs of service on the respective clients of the signed orders.

Tentative Ruling: Randy Kohn vs Ford Motor Company et al Tentative Ruling: Randy Kohn vs Ford Motor Company et al Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 08/07/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion for Summary Judgment Tentative Ruling For all reasons stated herein, the motion of defendants Ford Motor Company and Perry Ford Mazda for motion for summary adjudication and for summary judgment is denied.

Background: This is a dispute over a vehicle warranty pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act), Civil Code sections 1790 et seq., and related claims. The original complaint was filed by plaintiff Randy Kohn on June 7, 2024, against defendants Ford Motor Company (FMC) and Perry Ford Mazda (Perry Ford). The operative first amended complaint (FAC) was filed by plaintiff on October 21, 2024.

The FAC sets forth six causes of action for: (1) violation of subdivision (d) of Civil Code section 1793.2 (against FMC); (2) violation of subdivision (b) of Civil Code section 1793.2 (against FMC); (3) violation of subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code section 1793.2 (against FMC); (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (against FMC); (5) negligent repair (against Perry Ford); and (6) fraudulent inducement - concealment (against FMC).

As alleged in the FAC: On November 5, 2021, plaintiff entered into a warranty contract with FMC regarding a 2021 Ford F150 (Vehicle) manufactured and distributed by FMC. (FAC, P. 7.) The warranty contract included bumper-to-bumper, powertrain, and emission warranties. (Id. at P. 9 & Ex. A.)

Transmission defects, engine defects, infotainment defects, electrical defects, among other defects and non-conformities, manifested in the Vehicle during the warranty period which impair its use, value, and safety. (FAC, P.P. 12-13.) Plaintiff delivered the Vehicle to Perry Ford for repairs, but Perry Ford failed to repair the Vehicle in accordance with industry standards. (Id. at P.P. 71-73.) FMC failed to conform the Vehicle to the terms of the warranty after a reasonable number of repair attempts, and failed to replace the Vehicle or make restitution. (Id. at P.P. 17-17.)

Before plaintiff purchased the Vehicle, FMC knew that other vehicles equipped with the same 10-speed transmission suffered from defects that can cause the vehicles and their transmissions to experience hesitation, delayed acceleration, harsh or hard shifting, jerking, shuddering, or juddering (collectively, Transmission Defects). (FAC, P. 25.)

FMC acquired knowledge of the Transmission Defects through various sources, including pre-production testing; design failure mode and analysis data; production failure mode and analysis data; consumer complaints made to FMC's network of dealers and directly to FMC; warranty data compiled from FMC's network of dealers; testing conducted by FMC in response to consumer complaints; and repair orders and parts data received by FMC from its network of dealers. (Id. at P. 26.)

As a result of its internal knowledge and investigations of the Transmission Defects, FMC issued technical service bulletins which failed to fix the Transmission Defects. (Id. at P.P. 27-34.) Although it was aware of the Transmission Defects at the time of purchase and repair of the vehicle, FMC