Alvaro Pedroza v. Ford Motor Company et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: September 1, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. You must also contact the other side before 4:00 P.M. to inform them that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

Line 4 24CV454281 Alvaro Pedroza Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. v. Ford Motor Company et al. Line 5 24CV454463 Nicole Sousa v. Plaintiff Nicole Sousa’s motion for attorney fees as the prevailing party in Volkswagen this Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act action. (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. Group of (d) [authorizing recovery of attorney fees that were “reasonably incurred”].) America, Inc. Notice is proper and the motion is opposed by defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Defendant does not contest plaintiff’s entitlement to fees, but argues that the amount requested is unreasonable.

Plaintiff requests $41,457.50 in attorney fees, broken down as follows: 102.5 hours billed at attorney rates ranging from $430 to $560 per hour and a paralegal rate of $215. Plaintiff acknowledges defendant already paid costs, which are not sought by this motion. The court finds the hourly rates reasonable. The court agrees with defendant that some hours claimed are excessive. The following time will be removed from the fee award: one hour at $450/hour related to meeting and conferring; one hour at $450/hour related to drafting discovery requests; three hours at $425/hour related to responding to discovery requests; and $3,584 incurred after plaintiff was served with the Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer she ultimately accepted.

The other time was reasonably incurred. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs are awarded attorney fees in the amount of $36,548.50. The court will prepare the order.

Calendar Line 4 Case Name: Alvaro Pedroza v. Ford Motor Company et al. Case No.: 24CV454281

This is an action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act brought by plaintiff Alvaro Pedroza (Pedroza) against defendants Ford Motor Company (Ford); DGDG 16, LLC dba Capitol Ford (Capitol Ford); and Doe defendants. The lawsuit is based on Pedroza’s purchase of a 2023 Ford F-150 in July 2023. As part of the purchase, Pedroza entered into a warranty contract with Ford.

The original and still operative complaint filed in December 2024 alleges five causes of action: (1) breach of express warranty; (2) breach of implied warranty; (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2; (4) fraudulent inducement—concealment; and (5) negligent repair (against Capitol Ford only). A copy of the warranty contract is attached to the complaint as exhibit 1. Ford and Capitol Ford filed answers to the complaint in March 2025.

At issue is a motion for judgment on the pleadings brought jointly by Ford and Capitol Ford and opposed by Pedroza.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

“Judicial notice may not be taken of any matter unless authorized or required by law.” (Evid. Code, § 450.) A precondition to judicial notice in either its permissive or mandatory form is that the matter to be noticed be relevant to the material issue before the court. (Silverado Modjeska Recreation and Park Dist. v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 282, 307.) Evidence Code section 453, subdivision (b), requires a party seeking notice to “[furnish] the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter.”

Defendants have submitted a request for judicial notice of a copy of the complaint with the motion for judgment on the pleadings. That request is denied as unnecessary. The court already considers the challenged pleading as part of the motion. (Paul v. Patton (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1091, fn.1 [denying as unnecessary a request for judicial notice of pleading under review on demurrer].)

LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

A motion for judgment on the pleadings “is equivalent to a belated general demurrer.” (Sprague v. County of San Diego (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 119, 127.) It has the same function as a general demurrer, but it is made after the time for demurrer has expired. Except as provided by statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 438), the rules governing demurrers apply. The court accepts as true all properly pleaded material factual allegations, but does not accept as true contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Valero v. Spread Your Wings, LLC (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 243, 253.) Extrinsic evidence cannot be considered.

The court has considered the declaration from counsel for Capitol Ford only to the extent it describes the meet and confer efforts required by statute. The court has not considered the attached exhibit. The meet and confer efforts were inadequate. Sending email messages does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 439, subdivision (a), which requires a 9

moving party to meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” But that failure to adequately meet and confer, without more, is not a basis to deny the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(4).) Finally, “points raised in the reply brief for the first time will not be considered, unless good reason is shown for failure to present them before.” (Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1273.)

DISCUSSION

Defendants jointly move “for judgment on the pleadings as to each cause of action in Plaintiff’s complaint and its request for punitive damages.” (Notice of Motion at p. 1:27-28.) As with a demurrer challenging an entire pleading, a judgment on the pleadings motion directed at an entire pleading fails if any cause of action is properly stated. (Warren v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 29, 36 [trial court’s sustention of demurrer to entire pleading reversed on ground that a cause of action was stated]; Shook v. Pearson (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 348 [a demurrer which attacks entire pleading should be overruled if one of the counts therein is not vulnerable to the objection.].)

The supporting memorandum addresses only the complaint’s fifth cause of action for negligent repair. Because the motion is directed at the entire complaint yet only addresses one cause of action, it could be denied outright for this reason alone. The court will instead interpret the motion as one directed at only the fifth cause of action.

Fifth Cause of Action

The fifth cause of action alleges negligent repair against Capitol Ford only. (See complaint, ¶¶ 33-37.) The fifth cause of action and the allegations incorporated by reference do not allege any personal injury or property damage independent of the alleged negligently performed repairs.

“The elements of a negligence cause of action are duty, breach, causation and damages.” (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.) “Negligence may be alleged in general terms; that is, it is sufficient to allege an act was negligently done without stating the particular omission which rendered it negligent.” (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Both defendants move for judgment on the pleadings. But the fifth cause of action is alleged against only Capitol Ford. Because the cause of action is not alleged against Ford, Ford’s motion for judgment on the pleadings must be denied.

Capitol Ford argues the cause of action is barred by the economic loss rule.

The Supreme Court in Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 17 Cal.5th 1, determined that the economic loss rule “applies to bar tort recovery for negligently inflicted economic losses unaccompanied by physical or property damage under the limits recognized in” Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 905, 922 (Sheen).” (Id. at p. 38.) Sheen determined that the economic loss rule generally bars claims for monetary losses between contractual parties that arise from or are not independent of the contract. (Sheen,

supra, 12 Cal.5th at pp. 923-924.) Sheen recognized an exception to the economic loss rule “for consumers who contract for certain kinds of professional services.” (Id. at p. 933.)

Here, allegations that an auto dealership negligently performed repairs “on numerous occasions” cannot be construed as negligence in providing professional services. Treating auto repairs as professional negligence would allow the exception to consume the economic loss rule. The complaint also does not allege any basis for a duty of care other than a contract, and does not allege a “common law” duty to repair.

The “the economic loss rule does not necessarily bar recovery in tort for damage that a defective product (e.g., a window) causes to other portions of a larger product (e.g., a house) into which the former has been incorporated.” (Jimenez v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 473, 483.) But the complaint here does not allege any damage to other portions of the subject vehicle caused by any allegedly negligent repairs. Instead, the complaint alleges that the subject vehicle was sold with a transmission defect that Capitol Ford did not cause but could not fix.

A plaintiff bears the burden of proving an amendment would cure the defect identified on demurrer. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081; Sanowicz v. Bacal (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1044.) Pedroza’s opposition does not meet this burden. It includes a generic request for leave to amend that fails to describe how the fifth cause of action could be amended to avoid the economic loss rule without contradicting existing factual allegations. (Shaeffer v. Califia Farms, LLC (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1125, 1145 [“The onus is on the plaintiff to articulate the ‘specifi[c] ways’ to cure the identified defect, and absent such an articulation, a trial or appellate court may grant leave to amend ‘only if a potentially effective amendment [is] both apparent and consistent with the plaintiff’s theory of the case.’”].)

Because Pedroza has not shown a reasonable possibility of amending the cause of action while remaining consistent with the existing express factual allegations, the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the fifth cause of action for negligent repair is granted without leave to amend. The court does not reach Capitol Ford’s other arguments.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is denied.

Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the complaint’s fifth cause of action for negligent repair is denied as brought by defendant Ford and granted without leave to amend as brought by defendant Capitol Ford.

The court will prepare the order.

- oo0oo -

11