EDUARDO D. CERNA ET AL VS. GENERAL MOTORS LLC ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Wednesday, July 23, 2025, Line 4 [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling]. DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Or, Alternatively, For Summary Adjudication.

The court treats General Motors LLC's motion for summary judgment as a motion for judgment on the pleadings and grants with 15 days leave to amend. (C. L. Smith Co. v. Roger Ducharme, Inc. (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 735, 745 ["a motion by a defendant under section 437c of the Code of Civil Procedure necessarily includes a test of the sufficiency of the complaint .... Motions for summary judgment in such situations have otherwise been allowed as being in legal effect motions for judgment on the pleadings."]; White v. County of Orange (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 566, 569.)

Plaintiffs the Cernas leased the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado in July of 2019 and subsequently purchased it in July of 2022. (Complaint, par. 8.) Plaintiffs contend that they received a New Vehicle Limited Warranty from defendant when they leased the vehicle. Plaintiffs' allegations that defendant was a distributor are conclusory. (Complaint, par. 24.)

Under the Song-Beverly Act, lessees of consumer goods are entitled to its protections and may redress violations of its provisions by filing suit. (See Park City Services, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 295, 304 ["In 1984, the Song-Beverly Act was amended ... so as to apply to leases as well as sales"].) Per Civil Code section 1795.4(b), "[t]he lessee of goods has the same rights under [the Act] against the manufacturer and any person making express warranties that the lessee would have had under [the Act] if the goods had been purchased by the lessee, and the manufacturer and any person making express warranties have the same duties and obligations under [the Act] with respect to the goods that such manufacturer and other person would have had under [the Act] if the goods had been sold to the lessee."

Civil Code section 1793.2(d)(2)(D) also clarifies: "Pursuant to section 1795.4, a buyer of a new motor vehicle shall also include a lessee of a new motor vehicle."

In Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189, 196 the California Supreme Court held "that a motor vehicle purchased with an unexpired manufacturer's new car warranty does not qualify as a 'motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer's new car warranty' under section 1793.22, subdivision (e)(2)'s definition of 'new motor vehicle' unless the new car warranty was issued with the sale." "[T]he phrase 'other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer's new car warranty' was not intended to cover any used car with an unexpired new car warranty." (Rodriguez, 17 Cal.5th at p. 202.) Rodriguez's extensive discussion of the statutory language confines 1793.22, subdivision (e)(2), to those purchases where a warranty is issued with the purchase transaction. (Id. at pp. 198-199.)

[End of part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling] =(301/CVA) | |