Kevin Gerhardt vs. General Motors LLC

34-2020-00281778-CU-BC-GDS: Kevin Gerhardt vs. General Motors LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company 08/01/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other to Lift Stay in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Kevin Gerhardt and Performance Trailers Inc.’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion to lift stay is ruled upon as follows. The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to notify Defendant’s counsel immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event the Defendant appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

This is a Lemon Law action arising from Plaintiffs’ purchase of an allegedly faulty 2016 Chevrolet Silverado on April 25, 2018. Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on July 14, 2020, alleging breach of warranty claims under the Beverly Consumer Warranty Act against Defendant General Motors, LLC (“Defendant”). Defendant demurred and Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”). The Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike punitive damages from the FAC. On September 16, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”), including a cause of action for fraudulent inducement by concealment.

Defendant again responded with a demurrer and motion to strike. Plaintiff opposed. On March 16, 2022, the Court ordered the matter stayed pending the California Supreme Court’s ruling on the question certified to it by Rattagan v. Uber Technologies (9th Cir. Dec. 6, 2021) 2021 U.S.App. LEXIS 35874. Plaintiffs move for an order lifting the stay on Defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike and placing it back on the Court’s calendar for hearing. The motion is DENIED. In the Court’s March 16, 2022 order, counsel was “directed to place the matter back on calendar for hearing after the Supreme Court’s opinion in Rattagan had issued.” Accordingly, moving for an order lifting the stay is not required.

Regardless, the Court notes the Supreme Court has yet to issue a decision in Rattagan. (See Rattagan, supra, no. S272113 (Cal. June 4, 2024) [the Supreme Court heard argument and submitted the matter for decision on June 4, 2024].) Thus, even if counsel was required to move for an order lifting the stay, the Court would decline to do so as it would be premature. The motion is DENIED. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the

34-2020-00281778-CU-BC-GDS: Kevin Gerhardt vs. General Motors LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company 08/01/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other to Lift Stay in Department 54

hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail 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 it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.