Defendant General Motors LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment; or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication
4. 23CV01025 HARO, OSCAR V. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC EVENT: Defendant General Motors LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment; or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication
Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant” herein) has met its burden to show that Plaintiff Oscar Haro’s claims fail as a matter of law. Code of Civil Procedure §437c(p)(2); Cummins, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.5th 478; Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 824; Undisputed Material Fact No. 2; Declaration of Xylong Quezada at ¶3, and Exhibit A attached therto; Declaration of Bryan Jensen at ¶¶4 and 6, and Exhibits A and C thereto; and Declaration of Gregory Yu at ¶1, and Exhibit 1 thereto.
Specifically, the Court finds that Defendant has produced evidence showing the 2017 GMC Sierra 1500, VIN: 3GTU2NEC2HG367968 ("Subject Vehicle" herein), was purchased in Nampa, Idaho. Undisputed Material Fact No. 2; Declaration of Xylong Quezada at ¶3, and Exhibit A attached therto; Declaration of Bryan Jensen at ¶¶4 and 6, and Exhibits A and C thereto; and Declaration of Gregory Yu at ¶1, and Exhibit 1 thereto.
Therefore, Defendant has shown that the Subject Vehicle was not purchased in California and thus would not be covered under the Song Beverly Act. The burden having shifted, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to raise a triable issue of fact, and Plaintiff’s own evidence submitted in opposition to the motion further supports Defendant's position that the Subject Vehicle was purchased outside of California.
Plaintiff also argues that the government interest test must be applied, but this argument is not persuasive. Defendant does not request that the Court apply non-California law to Plaintiff’s claims. Rather, Defendant argues that the Song Beverly Act does not encompass claims arising from vehicles purchased outside of California. The Court agrees.
As to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Claim, the Court finds that the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 824
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Defendant General Motors LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in its entirety.
The Court vacates the Mandatory Settlement Conference on July 27, 2026, the Trial Readiness Conference on July 30, 2026, and the Jury Trial on August 3, 2026, and sets this matter for a Status Hearing on June 24, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. for status of judgment and dismissal. ///
2|Page