MORRAR, vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

24CV085464: MORRAR, vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC. 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC. (Defendant) CRS# 672567907935 in Department 15

Tentative Ruling - 06/29/2026 Peter Borkon

The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC. on 04/10/2026 is Granted.

This action arises under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Act”). In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Linda Odetallah Morrar (“Plaintiff”) asserts three causes of action against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Defendant”) for failing to comply with the express warranty provisions under Civil Code section 1793.2 of the Act.

Defendant moves for summary judgment of the Second Amended Complaint. The motion is unopposed. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)

Once a moving party meets their burden to show that a cause of action has no merit, i.e., that one or more elements cannot be established, or there is a complete defense to the cause of action, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. (Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) § 437c(p)(1).)

Summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (Id., § 437c(c); DeCastro West Chodorow & Burns, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 410, 422.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff’s causes of action for violation of the Act’s express warranty provisions are time-barred.

The four-year statute of limitations under Commercial Code section 2725 applies to Song- Beverly claims for breaches of express and implied warranties. (See Krieger v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 205, 213-15; see also Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1305-06.) Section 2725 provides that a cause of action accrues “when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party's lack of knowledge of the breach. A breach of warranty occurs when tender of delivery is made, except that where a warranty explicitly extends 24CV085464: MORRAR, vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC. 07/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC. (Defendant) CRS# 672567907935 in Department 15 to future performance of the goods and discovery of the breach must await the time of such performance the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered.” (Com.

Code § 2725(2).)

The Court previously ruled that the “future performance” exception to the four-year statute of limitations under section 2725 does not apply to the express warranty claims asserted in this case because (1) the warranty attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint explicitly stated that it began on the date the vehicle was delivered; and (2) Plaintiff alleged that she discovered the vehicle defect on 2/6/2019, more than five years before filing this lawsuit. (See Lawless Decl. ¶ 12; see also Order dated 3/7/2025.) The Court therefore found that Plaintiff could not state breach of warranty claims as a matter of law unless she demonstrated that tolling applied. (Id.) The Court takes judicial notice of the 3/7/2025 Order. (Evid. Code § 452(d).)

Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle – a 2017 Honda Pilot – on 7/12/2018 and accepted delivery of the vehicle on the same date. (Undisp. Mat. Facts (“UMFs”) 1-2.) The vehicle was delivered subject to two express warranties: a New Motor Vehicle Limited Warranty (“NVLW”) that lasted for three years or 36,000 miles, whichever came first; and a Powertrain Warranty that lasted for five years or 60,000 miles, whichever came first. (UMFs 2-4.) By their own terms, the warranties began to run when the vehicle was delivered on 7/12/2018. (UMF 5.)

Plaintiff presented the vehicle to San Leandro Honda and Dublin Honda for routine maintenance and repair of complaints numerous times throughout the coverage periods under the NVLW and Powertrain warranties, and the evidence shows that Plaintiff discovered the engine complaint by 2/6/2019 at the latest. (UMFs 8-12.) Plaintiff did not commence this action until 7/31/2024, more than six years after delivery and more than five years after presenting the vehicle for an engine complaint on 2/6/2019. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred. Defendant has successfully shifted its burden of production regarding its statute of limitations defense. Plaintiff did not oppose this motion or demonstrate evidence of tolling to trigger the “future performance” exception to the four-year statute of limitations under section 2725.

Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to judgment on the Second Amended Complaint. The unopposed motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.