Dumas v. General Motors CA4/2 (2024) · DecisionDepot
Dumas v. General Motors CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Nov 18, 2024 No. E081338Unpublished
Filed 11/18/24 Dumas v. General Motors CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
CONNIE DUMAS et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, E081338
v. (Super.Ct.No. CVRI2100249)
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, OPINION
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Harold W. Hopp, Judge.
A distributor is an entity “that stands between the manufacturer and the retail seller in
purchases, consignments, or contracts for sale of consumer goods.” (§ 1791, subd. (e).)
5
A seller or retailer is an entity “that engages in the business of selling or leasing
consumer goods to retail buyers.” (§1791, subd. (l).)
In their first cause of action, plaintiffs allege GM violated the Act’s “refund-or-
replace” provision for new motor vehicles, section 1793.2, subdivision (d)(2), which
“requires manufacturers to . . . ‘promptly make restitution’ to the buyer when the
manufacturer is ‘unable to service or repair a new motor vehicle, as that term is defined
in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 1793.22, to conform to the applicable
express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts.’ ” (Rodriguez,
supra,___Cal.5th___[2024 Cal.Lexis 6016 at [2]-[3]].) Section 1793.2, subdivision (e)(2)
defines “ ‘new motor vehicle’ ” to include “a new vehicle ‘bought or used primarily for
personal purposes’ as well as ‘a dealer-owned vehicle and a “demonstrator” or other
motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty.’ ” (Rodriguez,
supra,___Cal.5th___[2024 Cal.Lexis 6016 at [3]].) Resolving an issue of statutory
construction which had divided the Courts of Appeal, Rodriguez concluded 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’ . . . unless the new car
warranty was issued with the sale.” (Id. at [4].)2 Thus, under Rodriguez, the buyer of a
2 Rodriguez affirmed this court’s decision in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209, review granted July 13, 2022, S274625, which had created a split of authority with Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112 (Jensen). (Rodriguez, supra,___Cal.5th___[2024 Cal.Lexis 6016 at [5]].) Jensen observed that “ ‘ new motor vehicle[s]’ ” (§ 1793.2, subd. (e)(2)) include “ ‘cars sold with a balance remaining on the manufacturer’s new motor vehicle warranty.’ ” (Jensen, at p. 123.) Rodriguez disapproved Jensen to the extent Jensen is inconsistent with [footnote continued on next page]
6
previously-owned (i.e. used) vehicle that is not sold with a manufacturer’s new car
warranty is not entitled to the Act’s enhanced “refund-or-replace” remedy.
It is undisputed that the 2016 sale of the Cruze to plaintiffs was not accompanied
by GM’s manufacturer’s new car warranty. Thus, under Rodriguez, plaintiffs cannot
establish their first cause of action against GM for a refund of the purchase price or a
replacement of the previously-owned Chevy Cruze that plaintiffs purchased from Singh
Chevrolet, in 2016, with $53,903 miles on it. Plaintiffs’ second through fifth causes of
action, in which plaintiffs allege GM is liable to plaintiffs under the Act for failing to
(1) commence repairs on the Cruze within a reasonable time (second); (2) make available
“sufficient service literature and replacement parts” (third); (3) honor GM’s written
warranties on the Cruze (fourth), and (4) honor the implied warranty of merchantability
(fifth), also fail as matter of law.
As Rodriguez explains, the Act distinguishes between “new” and “used” consumer
goods, and, with exceptions not applicable here, imposes obligations and enhanced
remedies against manufacturers providing express warranties in the sale of new goods.
(Rodriguez, supra,___Cal.5th___[2024 Cal.Lexis 6016 at [13]-[14]].) The Act imposes
similar obligations and enhanced remedies against distributors and retail sellers who
provide express warranties in the sale of used goods, but in the sales of used goods “ ‘the
manufacturer is generally off the hook.’ ” (Rodriguez, supra,___Cal.5th___[2024
Cal.Lexis 6016 at [14]], quoting Kiluk, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 339.) Likewise,
Rodriguez’s interpretation of section 1793.22, subdivision (e)(2). (Rodriguez, supra,___Cal.5th___[2024 Cal.Lexis 6016 at [23]].)
7
“ ‘only distributors or sellers of used goods—not manufacturers of new goods—have
implied warranty obligations in the sale of used goods.’ ” (Rodriguez, supra,
___Cal.5th___[2024 Cal.Lexis 6016 at [14]], quoting Ruiz Nunez v. FCA US LLC (2021)
61 Cal.App.5th 385, 399.)3
In sum, plaintiffs cannot establish a cause of action or entitlement to a remedy
against GM under the Act. Although GM is the manufacturer of the Cruze, the Cruze is
not a “ ‘new motor vehicle’ ” for purposes of the Act because it was not sold to plaintiffs
with a new car manufacturer’s warranty, and there is no evidence GM issued any new car
warranties to plaintiffs in connection with plaintiffs’ purchase of the Cruze from Singh
Chevrolet. (Rodriguez, supra,___Cal.5th___[2024 Cal.Lexis 6016 at [14]-[15]].) No
evidence shows GM was a distributor or a retail seller of the Cruze. (§ 1791, subds. (e),
(l).) Plaintiffs acknowledge they adduced no evidence that GM was “a ‘distributor’ under
the Act.” (1791, subd. (e).) Thus, plaintiffs cannot establish a necessary element of any
of their five alleged causes of action against GM.4
3 Though not binding on this court, several federal district courts have also held that distributors and retailers, but not manufacturers, are liable to used vehicle purchasers for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the Act. (Johnson v. Nissan N. Am., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2017) 272 F.Supp.3d 1168, 1178-1179; In re MyFord Touch Consumer Litig (N.D. Cal. 2018) 291 F.Supp.3d 936, 950; Victorino v. FCA US LLC (S.D. Cal. 2018) 326 F.R.D. 282, 300-301.)
4 Plaintiffs have filed two motions, collectively asking this court to take judicial notice of (1) the appellants’ briefs filed in Jensen, (2) the briefs filed on appeal before our Supreme Court in Rodriguez, (3) the legislative history of section 1793.01, (4) legislative history materials attached to motions for judicial notice filed in this court in Rodriguez, and (5) other legislative history materials concerning the Act. For its part, GM has moved this court to take judicial notice of the materials lodged with our Supreme Court [footnote continued on next page]
8
IV. DISPOSITION
Plaintiffs’ appeal is dismissed with prejudice. The parties shall bear their costs on
appeal, and the remittitur shall issue immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272 (c).)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS J. We concur:
RAMIREZ P.J.
RAPHAEL J.
in Rodriguez (S274625). These include legislative history materials concerning the Act, Vehicle Code excerpts, and the respondents’ and cross-appellants’ briefs filed in Jensen. We deny these requests. In light of our Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez, the materials are irrelevant and unnecessary to our decision in this case.
9
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court dismissed the appeal with prejudice following a stipulated request by the parties after they settled their dispute. The court noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Rodriguez v. Us (2024) 17 Cal.5th 613 resolved the underlying merits of the appeal adversely to the plaintiffs.
Issues
Whether a used motor vehicle sold with an unexpired manufacturer's warranty qualifies as a 'new motor vehicle' under the Song-Beverly Act.
Whether a manufacturer is liable under the Song-Beverly Act for breach of express or implied warranties in the sale of a used vehicle.
Disposition. Dismissed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“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’ . . . unless the new car warranty was issued with the sale.”
“only distributors or sellers of used goods—not manufacturers of new goods—have implied warranty obligations in the sale of used goods.”