MUNDI vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

25CV023979: MUNDI vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

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 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 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 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

25CV023979: MUNDI vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 16D

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.

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D 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. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant General Motors, LLC’s motion to strike is ruled upon as follows.

In this Lemon Law action, Defendant seeks to strike portions of Plaintiff Mandeep Mundi’s complaint. Specifically, Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s requests for civil penalties. According to Defendant, Plaintiff’s request for civil penalties is not in compliance with CCP § 871.24.

A motion to strike is appropriate to strike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter asserted in any pleading and the Court may strike out all or any party of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the law. (See Code Civ. Pro. § 436 (a)-(c).) A motion to strike challenges portions of a cause of action that are substantively defective on the face of the complaint. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682-83; see also Code of Civ. Proc. § 437.) More specifically, a motion to strike should be granted to remove 'any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading,' or where the pleadings are drawn in violation of a law, rule or court order. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 436.) Examples of 'improper' matters include allegations which are 'at variance with the contract.' (California Sugar & White Pine Agency v. Penoyar (1914) 167 Cal. 274, 279.

“The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading, (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc, § 436.) A motion to strike is limited to the face of the challenged pleading or any matter of which the Court may take judicial notice. (CCP § 437(a).) The use of the motion to strike should be cautious and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023979: MUNDI vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 16D

sparing. It should not be a procedural 'line item veto'. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 1680, 1683.)

As noted above, Defendant contends that Plaintiff improperly seeks civil penalties because the complaint does not allege compliance with CCP § 871.24. In opposition, Plaintiff contends that the allegation that Plaintiff requested a buyback and/or replacement on August 26, 2025 are sufficient to support civil penalties.

CCP § 871.24 provides, in relevant part:

“(a) At least 30 days prior to the commencement of an action seeking civil penalties under subdivision (c) of Section 1794 of the Civil Code, the consumer shall do all of the following:

(1) Notify the manufacturer of the consumer's name, the accurate Vehicle Identification Number (“VIN”) of the motor vehicle, and a brief summary of the repair history and problems with the motor vehicle.

(2) Demand that the manufacturer repurchase or replace the motor vehicle.

(h) An action seeking restitution or replacement under Section 871.20 may be commenced without compliance with subdivision (a). In that event, the consumer shall have possession of the motor vehicle at the time of the filing of the complaint, and shall not seek civil penalties, whether by amendment of the complaint or otherwise. If, however, notice is provided pursuant to subdivision (a) and the manufacturer fails to comply with their obligations under subdivision (e), the consumer may commence an action for restitution or replacement, including, but not limited to, civil penalties under subdivision (c) of Section 1794 of the Civil Code.” (CCP § 871.24 [emphasis added].)

CCP § 871.24 also states that an action “shall not be allowed or maintained” for civil penalties if the manufacturer timely offers restitution or replacement and completes that transaction within 60 days of receiving the consumer's notice. (CCP § 871.24(e)(1).) In short, CCP § 871.24 establishes a formal notice-and-cure process that must occur before a plaintiff may invoke the penalty provisions of the Song-Beverly Act. California courts have held that when a statute creates a right and attaches specific conditions to its exercise, those conditions are mandatory. (Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 365, 371 [finding plaintiff could not plead civil penalties absent alleging compliance with the statute's pre-filing notice and exhaustion requirements].)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023979: MUNDI vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 16D

Here, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on October 10, 2025, after Section 871.24 was enacted but without any allegation that they provided the required prelitigation notice, identified the VIN, summarized the vehicle's repair history, or demanded repurchase or replacement through the specified statutory channels. The complaint is silent as to any notice at all, let alone compliance with the 30-day waiting period or the requirement that the vehicle remain in the consumer's possession during that period. (CCP § 871.24(c), (g).) Plaintiff failed to alleged compliance with CCP § 871.24.

Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff’s request for civil penalties from the complaint is granted with leave to amend.

Plaintiff may file and serve an amended complaint no later than June 18, 2026. Defendant shall file and serve a response within 30 days thereafter, 35 days if the amended complaint is served by mail as modified by the CCP 430.41 extension if necessary.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendant’s counsel is ordered to notify Plaintiff’s counsel immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom or by telephone, in the event Plaintiff’s counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.