Rincon v. General Motors

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 400) September 4, 2026 DEPARTMENT 400 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Limine in Rincon v. General Motors 24STCV33648

PLAINTIFF'S MIL #1: Seeks to preclude argument that Plaintiff failed to pursue 3 rd party dispute resolution as an alternative to this litigation. TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED. The availability of a certified arbitration program is a defense to any claim for civil penalties based simply on a violation of the law. CC section 1794(e). The parties have not addressed whether any program established by GM would meet the requirements of Section 1793.22

PLAINTIFF'S MIL #2: Seeks to preclude evidence that Plaintiff abused or poorly maintained the vehicle. TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED. Evidence that Plaintiff abused or failed to maintain the vehicle is a defense under CC section 1794.3. Plaintiff contends there is no evidence of such a failure but the trial has not commenced. The Court will not pre-judge the absence of evidence on amotion in limine heard pre-trial.

PLAINTIFF'S MIL #3: Seeks to preclude evidence that Plaintiff never made a pre-suit request to repurchase. TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED. While it is true that Plaintiff need not make a specific request that the vehicle be repurchased in order to trigger the Defendant's obligation to repurchase, it is also true that Defendant would not know of the concern unless it was communicated. The Court will consider an instruction that a specific request need not be made to impose a duty to repurchase, but that does not necessarily mean that all communications are irrelevant.

PLAINTIFF'S MIL #4: Seeks to preclude GM form offering testimony from a "PMK" regarding topics noticed by Plaintiff to cover at a PMK deposition but for which no witness was provided. TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED. While Plaintiff sought testimony from a GM witness on various topics, objections were made to the notice and Plaintiff did not follow up with a motion to test whether the objections were valid. In the absence of an order that GM produce a witness, there is no basis to exclude a witness for GM's failure to withdraw objections.

PLAINTIFF'S MIL #5: Seeks to preclude expert testimony for GM's failure to produce a the expert for deposition. TENTATIVE RULING: ARGUE. The parties exchanged correspondence and notices about taking the GM expert's testimony, but it was initiated late in the process and the deposition still has not occurred. The Court is inclined to order that the deposition be taken on a set date in the next week as a condition of allowing the expert to testify.

DEFENDANT'S MIL #1: Seeks to preclude argument based on the "Golden Rule." TENTATIVE RULING: GRANT. The exclusion of argument that Plaintiff should not ask the jury to put themselves in his shoes, or treat him as they want to be treated, is a familiar rule in jury trials and will be enforced.

DEFENDANT'S MIL#2 Seeks to preclude evidence of potential issues with this vehicle which Plaintiff did not experience. TENTATIVE RULING: GRANT. Only those issues which Plaintiff experienced are appropriate subjects of evidence, not unrelated issues experienced by other users.

DEFENDANT'S MIL #3: Seeks to preclude references to similar complaints from other owners of the same make and model vehicle. TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Evidence that other owners of the same vehicle experienced similar concerns potentially is relevant to issues of notice, whether the vehicle was misused and GM's good faith in handling customer complaints. The Court needs to hear the proposed evidence to assess its relevance to issues in the case.

DEFENDANT'S MIL #4 Seeks to prelude evidence of non-recoverable damages. TENTATIVE RULING: GRANT The Plaintiff may only recover certain categories of damages. Evidence of non-recoverable damages is obviously irrelevant. This ruling does not address which items are recoverable and which are not.

DEFENDANTS MIL #5 Seeks to preclude evidence of design defects in the vehicle. TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED. The Plaintiff's burden is to show that a defect in the vehicle substantially impaired its use, value or safety. It is not clear to the Court why evidence of design defects is not relevant to that question.

DEFENDANT'S MIL #6 Seeks to preclude argument regarding the absence of a GM corporate representative at trial. TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED The presence or absence of a corporate representative is not relevant to any matter being tried. Even if it had some value, to raise that issue would then require an explanation from GM which could include a description of the burden being imposed by lemon law cases, which would be an unnecessary side-show.

DEFENDANT'S MIL #7 Precludes the introduction of evidence not produced in discovery. TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This MIL is too broad as it seems to imply that a party must produce everything it might use at trial even with being asked for it. If an item has been withheld after it was requested, there might be a basis to exclude it. But that must be determined on a case by case basis.

DEFENDANT'S MIL #8 Would preclude any reference to so-called "lemon" laws. TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED The Court will not preclude the use of the term "lemon law" to describe the law generally at issue in this case. This term is well established in the vernacular and reference to it will not prejudice anyone.

Case Number: 24STCV33682 Hearing Date: September 4, 2026 Dept: 400 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

The Court tenders the following tentative decision in the matter Yesenia Zacarias, et al. v. FCA US, LLC, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court case number 24STCV33682, set for hearing on September 4, 2026. FCA US LLC (Defendant) moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Yesenia Zacarias and Rafael Vicente's (collectively, Plaintiffs) fifth cause of action for fraudulent inducement via concealment contained within their complaint on the basis that they have not pled sufficient facts. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.

A.

Legal Standard

A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made after the time to demur has expired and an answer has been filed. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 438, subd. (f).)

A motion by a defendant may be made on the grounds that the "complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant." (Id., Sec. 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii).)

A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer but is made after the time for demurrer has expired. Except as provided by statute, the rules governing demurrers apply. (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.)

Like a general demurrer, "ordinarily, a [motion for judgment on the pleadings] does not lie as to a portion of a cause of action, and if any part of a cause of action is properly pleaded, the [motion] will be overruled." (Fire Insurance Exchange v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.)

In considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, courts consider whether properly pled factual allegations -- assumed to be true and liberally construed -- are sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Stone Street Capital, LLC v. Cal. State Lottery Commission (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 109, 116.)

Courts may also consider facts subject to judicial notice. (Tung v. Chicago Title Co. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 734, 759.)