ANELA vs WILMOR & SONS PLUMBING, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al.

24CV014757: ANELA vs WILMOR & SONS PLUMBING, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

24CV014757: ANELA vs WILMOR & SONS PLUMBING, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

ID: 16039062174

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV014757: ANELA vs WILMOR & SONS PLUMBING, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

Defendant Elliott Homes, Inc.’s (“Elliott”) motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, against Plaintiff Gaetano Anela (“Plaintiff”) is ruled upon as follows.

Elliott’s request for judicial notice is granted.

This action arises out of the alleged construction defects in piping installed at Plaintiff’s home located at 3285 Balada Way, Rancho Cordova, California. The house was purchased from Elliott. Defendant Wilmor & Sons Plumbing (“Wilmor”) was the plumbing contractor. The piping manufacturer was Consolidated Plumbing Industries (“CPI”); CPI is no longer in business and not a party to this action.

Plaintiff alleges there were five leaks between 2016 and 2021 that caused property damage in various parts of the home. Plaintiff repaired the house and ultimately had it re-piped. He is seeking reimbursement for these costs. Plaintiff has sued Elliott and Wilmor for a breach of express warranty, intentional misrepresentation, and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

Elliott brings the instant motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication.

Legal Standard

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication the Court engages in a three-step process.

First, the Court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.) Because a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 690, 694), all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings. The Court cannot consider an unpleaded issue in ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.) The papers filed in response to a defendant's motion

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV014757: ANELA vs WILMOR & SONS PLUMBING, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not create issues outside the pleadings and are not a substitute for an amendment to the pleadings. (Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342.) Indeed, it has often been noted that “[i]t would be patently unfair to allow plaintiffs to defeat [movant’s] summary judgment motion by allowing them to present a “moving target” unbounded by the pleadings.” (Melican v. Regents of University of California, (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 168, 176-177 [brackets added].)

Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its burden. A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication bears the burden of persuasion that one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850, quoting CCP § 437c(p)(2).) A defendant is not required to conclusively negate one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action. (Saelzer v Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 780-781).

Rather, to meet its burden, the defendant is required to show only that the plaintiff cannot prove an element of its cause of action, i.e., that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence necessary to show this element. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 853-855.) Further, the initial burden requires a showing that the plaintiff “could not prevail on any theory raised by the pleadings.” (Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 936, 939-940.)

At the same time, a defendant cannot shift the burden to the plaintiff simply by suggesting the possibility that the plaintiff cannot prove its case; a moving defendant must still make “an affirmative showing” in support of its motion. (Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at 854-855 n.23; Addy v Bliss & Glennon (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 205, 214.)

Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a material factual issue exists as to the cause of action alleged or a defense to it. (CCP § 437c(p); see, generally Bush v. Parents Without Partners (1993) 17 Cal. App. 4th 322, 326-327.) In ruling on the motion, the Court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 843.)

Finally, the Court reminds the parties of the 'Golden Rule' of summary judgment or adjudication: 'If it is not set forth in the separate statement, it does not exist.' (See Zimmerman, Rosenfeld v. Larson (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1477 [italics in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV014757: ANELA vs WILMOR & SONS PLUMBING, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

original].) Moreover, according to Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, a moving party's inclusion of facts in its separate statement effectively concedes each fact's 'materiality,' whether intended or not, and if there is a triable dispute relating to any one of these facts, the motion must be denied. (Id. at 252 [citing Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, Ch.10:95.1].)

In ruling on the motion, the Court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 843.)

Discussion

Elliott now moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication as to the three causes of action, set forth in the notice of motion as follows:

1. Breach of Warranty – on the grounds that the statute of limitations has expired and/or on the grounds that the action has no merit as there are no genuine issues of material fact. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law as this action is barred by the statute of limitations.

2. Intentional Misrepresentation – on the grounds that there is no genuine issue of material fact that ELLIOTT issued statements of fact and/or Plaintiff cannot establish a genuine issue of material fact that they suffered damages because of any misrepresentation and therefore cannot establish a necessary element to the cause of action. Therefore, this cause of action has no merit; and

3. Violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. – on the grounds that this cause of action has no merit as it relies on the prior causes of action which cannot proceed against ELLIOTT based on the undisputed material facts.

(Notice, 2:3-14.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV014757: ANELA vs WILMOR & SONS PLUMBING, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

Facts

According to the Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Fact (“SSUMF”) asserted by Elliott, Plaintiff purchased her home from Elliott on February 20, 2003. (SSUMF, Nos. 3-4.) A Notice of Completion for the property was issued on January 27, 2003. (SSUMF, No. 5.)

The piping was installed by Wilmor. (SSUMF, No. 7.) The manufacturer of the pipes installed in the home was CPI. (SSUMF. No. 8.) NIBCO acquired CPI’s assets in May or June 2006. (SSUMF, No. 13.)

Plaintiff alleges that he suffered water damage at the home between 2016 - 2021 because of the piping installed at the house. (SSUMF, No. 6.)

The above facts are undisputed by Plaintiff.

Potential Warranties at Issue

When the house was sold on February 20, 2003, Elliott issued a one-year warranty to Plaintiff, including the plumbing. (SSUMF, No. 9.) It expired no later than February 20, 2004. (SSUMF, No. 9.)

Statutory requirements under SB800 (Civ. Code §895 et seq.) extended some requirements for Elliott to ten years, or January 27, 2013 – three years prior to the time of Plaintiff’s first alleged leak. (Civ. Code §941.) The applicable law, which is for ten years, also expired no later than January 27, 2013. (Code Civ. Proc. §337.15)

Wilmor issued its own separate warranty for the installation of the pipes for ten years. (SSUMF, No. 10.) That warranty expired no later than February 20, 2014. (SSUMF, No. 10.)

CPI issued a ten-year limited warranty that it agreed to extend for fifteen additional years, for a total 25-year limited warranty. (SSUMF, No. 11.) CPI subsequently sold its assets to NIBCO in 2006. (SSUMF, No. 13.)

Elliott argues that any warranty still in existence at the time of the alleged damages in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV014757: ANELA vs WILMOR & SONS PLUMBING, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

this action (post – 2016) was held solely by CPI, a company without assets as of 2006. (SSUMF, No. 13.)

Facts Asserted by Plaintiff

Plaintiff alleges that before he learned about the CPI/Dura-Pex twenty-five-year warranty extension, he attempted to determine whether he could participate in a class action against NIBCO relating to defective plumbing products. (Anela Decl., ¶¶ 9-10.) Plaintiff asserts that he was informed that he could not participate in the class action because the pipe at his residence did not have the required identifying code and/or number for that class action. (Anela Decl., ¶ 11.) Neither NIBCO nor CPI are parties to this action.

Plaintiff asserts that after repeated leaks, Plaintiff contacted Elliott regarding the plumbing problems and asked for assistance. (Anela Decl., ¶ 14.) On or about January 26, 2021, Plaintiff received a letter from Harry Elliott of Elliott regarding the plumbing problems. (Anela Decl., ¶ 15; Ex. A.) In that letter, Harry Elliott stated, among other things, that Plaintiff’s home was “over seven years outside the warranty period” and that Elliott could not provide or recommend assistance that would be without cost to Plaintiff. (Anela Decl., ¶ 16; Ex. A.)

Plaintiff understood Elliott’s January 26, 2021 letter to mean that there was no warranty coverage available for the plumbing problems at his home. (Anela Decl., ¶ 17.) At the time he received the letter, Plaintiff did not know that there was a CPI/Dura-Pex warranty extension extending the warranty from ten years to twenty-five years. (Anela Decl., ¶ 18.) Plaintiff relied on Elliott’s representation that the home was outside the warranty period. (Anela Decl., ¶ 19.) Because Plaintiff believed the warranty period had expired, he did not pursue warranty remedies that he otherwise would have pursued had he known about the twenty-five-year warranty extension. (Anela Decl., ¶ 20.)

Plaintiff first learned that there may have been a CPI/Dura-Pex twenty-five-year warranty extension on or about September 25, 2023. (Anela Decl., ¶ 22.) Plaintiff learned about the warranty-extension issue from his neighbor. In or about June 2024, Plaintiff received a physical copy of the warranty-extension document from Linda Angelo. (Anela Decl., ¶¶ 23-24.) The document states, in part, “Congratulations on the purchase of your new home. In an agreement with Elliott Homes, CPI has extended the attached warranty from the original 10 years to 25 years.” (Plaintiff’s SSUF No, 1)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV014757: ANELA vs WILMOR & SONS PLUMBING, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

(Anela Decl., ¶ 24.)

Because the plumbing system continued to fail, Plaintiff decided to repipe the residence. (Anela Decl., ¶ 27.) The total invoice for the re-pipe and related repair work was $39,550.55. (Anela Decl., ¶ 30; Ex. D.)

Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Breach of Express Warranty

Elliott argues that any express warranty by Elliott for Plaintiff’s piping expired one year from the date of purchase, February 20, 2004.

Elliott further argues that even if the promises under SB800 Right to Repair Act were to be considered a “warranty” for Plaintiff breach of express warranty cause of action, any obligation under Civil Code section 895 et seq. expired (pursuant to Civil Code section 941) no later than January 2013.

Elliott further notes that the document that Plaintiff relies on to support the allegation that Elliott owed them a longer warranty was issued by CPI. The letter is on CPI letterhead and signed by a CPI employee. It states in pertinent part: “In an agreement with Elliott Homes, CPI has extended the attached warranty for your home from the original 10 years to 25 years.” [Emphasis added.] (SSUMF, No. 16.) The warranty extension states in pertinent part: “This is a special warranty extension on Dura-Pex pipe for Wilmor & Sons Plumbing.

This document extends the original 10-year CPI limited warranty an additional 15 years for a total of 25 years. The terms and conditions of the warranty remain as stated in the original document.” [Emphasis added.] (SSUMF, No. 17.) Elliott emphasizes that these documents in no way provide any warranty from Elliott to Plaintiff, and that CPI could not confer a warranty from Elliott to Plaintiff. The “original document” referenced in the extension also does not in any way confer a warranty from Elliott to Plaintiff, and states, in pertinent part, “Subject to the conditions and limitations in this limited warranty, Consolidated Plumbing Industries Corporation (CPI) warrants that, when Dura-Pex cross linked polyethylene pipe (or Barrier Pex) and tubing is used with Dura-Pro crimp insert fittings approved by CPI, they will, under normal conditions of use, be free or defects in material and workmanship for Ten (10) years as to collapse or leak ” [Emphasis added.] (SSUMF, No.18.)[1]

In opposition, as to the breach of express warranty claim, Plaintiff argues:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV014757: ANELA vs WILMOR & SONS PLUMBING, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

Plaintiff does not rely solely on Elliott’s one-year builder warranty. Plaintiff relies on evidence that CPI issued a warranty extension relating to Dura-Pex piping that extended the warranty period from ten years to twenty-five years. (Plaintiff’s SSUF No, 1) (Anela Decl., ¶¶ 21-26, 40; Ex. B.) Elliott’s own discovery responses state Elliott was aware CPI products were used during construction of the subject property and that there may have been additional warranties issued by Wilmor and/or CPI. (Maloney Decl., Ex. G, Special Interrogatory Responses Nos. 3 and 6.)

Whether Plaintiff may enforce rights arising from the warranty- extension documents, whether Elliott had knowledge of the warranty extension, and whether Elliott’s representations deprived Plaintiff of warranty remedies present disputed issues that cannot be resolved on summary judgment.

At minimum, the evidence raises factual disputes concerning the existence, scope, and effect of the extended warranty, Elliott’s knowledge of warranty coverage, and whether Plaintiff was wrongfully deprived of available warranty remedies.

(Opposition, 12:1-15.)

The Court finds that Elliott has met its initial burden to show that Plaintiff’s breach of express warranty claim against Elliott fails as a matter of law as no warranty from Elliott to Plaintiff was still valid in 2016, the time of Plaintiff’s initial leak. This simple fact is not disputed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not assert that the extended warranty by CPI was a warranty from Elliott to Plaintiff, but instead only argues that Elliott knew about CPI’s extended warranty and made misrepresentations regarding CPI’s warranty.

Plaintiff does not put any of SSUMFs 1-18 in dispute and has failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to its claim for breach of express warranty because Plaintiff had no warranty in effect from Elliott at the time of the first leak in 2016 or anytime thereafter. There was no express warranty to breach.

Elliott’s motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s first cause of action for breach

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV014757: ANELA vs WILMOR & SONS PLUMBING, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

of express warranty is therefore GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for Intentional Misrepresentation

To establish a cause of action for intentional misrepresentation, Plaintiff must prove the following: “‘(1) a misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of falsity, (3) intent to induce reliance, (4) actual and justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage.’” (Aton Center, Inc. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1214, 1245 (quoting Chapman v. Skype Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 217, 230-231).)

Defendants rely on SSUMFs 1-22 to support its motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for intentional misrepresentation.

As a result, if any one of these asserted facts is not sufficiently established by Elliott’s evidence, Elliott will have failed to satisfy its initial burden and summary judgment/adjudication must be denied. Further, even if Elliott sufficiently establishes SSUMFs 1-22 with competent evidence, a single triable issue of disputed fact raised by Plaintiff as to asserted SSUMFs 1-22 mandates denial of summary judgment and summary adjudication as to the second cause of action. (See, Homestead Savings v. Super. Court (Dividend Devel. Corp.) (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 494, 498.) Elliott’s separate statement effectively concedes the materiality of the facts included therein such that a triable issue raised as to any one fact is grounds for denial. (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252.)

The Court finds that Elliott’s motion for summary adjudication as to the second cause of action for intentional misrepresentation must be DENIED because the Court finds that there is a triable issue of fact as to SSUMF 22.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges:

26. Defendants represented that the warranty on the “CPI” pipes in Plaintiff’s home had expired. This representation was made in writing.

27. Defendants representations to Plaintiff were false.

(RJN, Ex. A, Complaint ¶¶ 26-27.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV014757: ANELA vs WILMOR & SONS PLUMBING, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

Plaintiff bases these allegations on a January 26, 2021 letter from Elliott that states, in pertinent part:

Throughout the lifetime of your ten-year home warranty, Elliott Homes addressed various minor issues you raised, honoring our quality commitment to you. In September of 2016, three years out of your home warranty, you notified us that you had a leak in the attic. Our Home Care Manager nevertheless came to your home; and he recommended that you call our plumbing subcontractor, Iron Oak Plumbing to inspect and repair the problem. You chose to do the repair yourself.

It is unfortunate that since your home repair you have had subsequent leaks. However, your home is over seven years outside the warranty period, and we cannot provide or recommend assistance that would be without cost to you. We apologize for the inconvenience this has caused.

(Elliott Decl.¶15, Ex. 5; SSUMF, No. 21.)

Elliott’s motion asserts as SSUMF 22, “The statements made in ‘Letter from Harry Elliott.pdf’ dated January 26, 2021 are true.”

Elliott argues that the statements in the letter are true because the letter contains no representation as to the CPI warranty, and the reference to the home being “over seven years outside the warranty period” is referring to the Elliott warranty period referenced earlier in the letter as having expired in 2013. (Elliott Decl., Ex. 5.)

However, SSUMF 22 is disputed by Plaintiff. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that at the time of the 2021 letter, Elliott knew of the extension to the CPI warranty, and that representation in the letter that “your home is over seven years outside the warranty period” misrepresented the fact that the CPI warranty was actually still in effect, having been extended to 2028.

The transmittal letter for the CPI extended warranty indicates it was being extended “[i]n an agreement with Elliott Homes” (SSUMF 16) and Elliott does not dispute its

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV014757: ANELA vs WILMOR & SONS PLUMBING, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

knowledge of the CPI extended warranty. A reasonable inference can be drawn that Elliott knew, or should have known, about the extended warranty, thus, it was not actually “true” that Plaintiff’s claims were “outside the warranty period.”

The Court finds that there is a triable issue of material fact as to whether the 2021 statement made by Elliott that the home was “over seven years outside the warranty period” was true as asserted in Elliott’s SSUMF 22.

Because Plaintiff has raised a triable issue of material fact as to SSUMF 22, Elliott’s motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for intentional misrepresentation fails and is DENIED.

Elliott did not bring a motion for summary adjudication as to the separate issue of whether Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of misrepresentations made by Elliott, and so the Court does not reach that issue.

Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

Because Elliott’s motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s third cause of action for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. is also dependent on SSUMF 22, Elliott’s motion as to Plaintiff’s third cause of action is also DENIED.

Elliott’s motion for summary judgment as to the entire action is also therefore DENIED.

Disposition

Elliott’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

Elliott’s motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s first cause of action for breach of express warranty is GRANTED.

Elliott’s motion for summary adjudication as to Elliott’s second cause of action for intentional misrepresentation and as to Plaintiff’s third cause of action for Violation of Buiness and Professions Code section 17200 et. seq are DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV014757: ANELA vs WILMOR & SONS PLUMBING, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

(Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

[1] The Court also notes that the original warranty issued by CPI provides that in the event CPI piping is

proven defective, “CPI will replace the amount of product proven defective . . . free of charge.” (Elliott Decl., Ex. 3.) The original CPI warranty does not purport to obligate any other entity to remedy CPI piping that has proven defective within the warranty period.