Dinh vs. Nguyen

vehicle did not have a latent defect.

The problems faced by the Plaintiff, which were the reason that Plaintiff brought in the subject vehicle for repair, is evidence that there was a latent defect.

Plaintiff’s evidence that there was a latent defect and Defendant’s evidence that there was not a latent defect create a triable issue of material fact.

Finally, Plaintiff presents evidence that, in January 2024, he received a safety recall notice related to a problem in the vehicle’s charging system. (See Decl. of Paul B. Lee in Opp’n to Def.s’ Mot. for Summ. J. or, in the Alternative, Summ. Adj., ¶ 7.)

This also creates a dispute of fact as to the existence of a latent defect and merchantability that will need to be decided at trial.

Accordingly, the court will deny the motion as to the 2nd Cause of Action.

Summary Judgment

Summary judgment, as opposed to summary adjudication, is not proper unless there is no merit or no defense to the entire action or proceeding. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subd. (a).)

Thus, if any cause of action survives, a grant of summary judgment is improper. (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2002) ¶¶ 10:26 to 10:27, p. 10–9.)

Here, both of the causes of action of the Complaint survive.

Therefore, the court must deny the motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.

14 Dinh vs. There is no full written tentative ruling. The court provides the following Nguyen summary tentative ruling:

Motion for Summary Judgment

30-2025- Defendants Minh Phuong Nguyen’s and Que Tam Trinh’s Motion for 01488040 Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs’ Complaint Based on Settlement and Release is DENIED.

There is a triable issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiffs Thien Dinh and Ngan Nguyen, through their counsel, accepted the settlement presented by Defendants Minh Phuong Nguyen and Que Tam Trinh.

There is no communication or action by the Plaintiffs or their Counsel that shows unambiguous acceptance of the settlement offer made by Defendants.

Instead, the factfinder is left to interpret the words and conduct of the parties to determine whether the parties intended to enter into an agreement.