Motion for Summary Judgment
Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff purchased the vehicle on May 12, 2019. (UF 1.) There are no allegations in the Complaint that any defects presented during the one year implied warranty period. (See Civ. Code §1791.1(c).) Plaintiff initiated this action more than 6 years after purchase of the vehicle, on July 21, 2025. (See ROA No. 2.)
Thus, the first cause of action fails.
Second Causes of Action for Breach of Express Warranty
Defendant contends the second cause of action for breach of express warranty is also barred by the four-year statute of limitations of Commercial Code 2725.
As set forth above, Plaintiff filed this action more than six years after delivery of the vehicle. The Court further notes that the Complaint does not contain any allegations that the express warranty extended to future performance; nor is there any allegation of delayed discovery.
Accordingly, the second cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations.
Third Cause of Action for Violation of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
Defendant contends that the third cause of action for violation of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is also governed by and barred by the four year statute of limitations found in Commercial Code §2725. (See Krieger v Nick Alexander Imports (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 205, 215.)
To the extent that the six year statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 871.21, which came into effect on January 1, 2025, applies to this cause of action, it would also bar this claim.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.21, subdivision (b), “an action covered by Section 871.20 shall not be brought later than six years after the date of original delivery of the motor vehicle.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 871.21
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?”
The above applies to “an action, brought against a manufacturer who has elected under Section 871.29 to proceed under this chapter, seeking restitution or replacement of a motor vehicle pursuant to subdivision (b) or (d) of Section 1793.2, Section 1793.22, or Section 1794 of the Civil Code, or for civil penalties pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 1794 of the Civil Code, where the request for restitution or replacement is based on noncompliance with
the applicable express warranty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 871.20, subd. (a) [emphasis added].)
A set forth above, it is undisputed that Plaintiff purchased the vehicle on May 12, 2019. (UF 1.) Additionally, a review of the record confirms that Plaintiff initiated this action more than 6 years later, on July 21, 2025. (See ROA No. 2.)
Thus, the third cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations.
Accordingly, summary judgment is GRANTED.
Moving party to give notice and to prepare a proposed judgment.