Jacqueline Ramirez vs. General Motors, LLC

34-2021-00309302-CU-BC-GDS: Jacqueline Ramirez vs. General Motors, LLC 04/13/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C, located at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse located at 500 G. Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

34-2021-00309302-CU-BC-GDS: Jacqueline Ramirez vs. General Motors, LLC 04/13/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

ID: 16039062174

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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***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 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C 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****

Tentative Ruling:

Defendant General Motors, LLC’s (“GM”) motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, is ruled upon as follows.

Background

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00309302-CU-BC-GDS: Jacqueline Ramirez vs. General Motors, LLC 04/13/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

GM brings the instant motion for

Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication on all five causes of action in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. GM is entitled to summary judgment in its favor on these claims in Plaintiff’s FAC: (i) on Counts I-III because Plaintiff cannot pursue breach of express warranty claims under Song-Beverly against GM about a vehicle Plaintiff did not purchase as a “new motor vehicle”; (ii) on Count IV because Plaintiff cannot pursue a breach of implied warranty claim against GM based upon a vehicle Plaintiff bought “used”; and (iii) on Count V for fraudulent inducement - concealment because the information that GM allegedly failed to disclose was publicly available.

(Notice, 2:4-12.)

GM lists the following as “Facts Common to All Issues” in its Separate Statement:

1. The vehicle at issue is a model year 2014 Chevrolet Cruz, VIN 1G1PC5SBXE7436458 (the “Cruz”), which Jacqueline Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) bought used on July 11, 2017.

2. Plaintiff did not buy the Cruz new; Plaintiff bought it used, with 33,355 miles, from Cardinale Oldsmobile GMC Truck in Seaside, CA.

3. GM was not a party to the transaction between Plaintiff and Cardinale Oldsmobile GMC Truck.

4. Plaintiff was not the Cruz’s original owner(s).

5. The Ancira-Winton Chevrolet, Inc. delivered the Cruz to its original owner(s) back on August 19, 2014, with 9 miles on its odometer.

6. In connection with the delivery to the Cruz’s original owner(s) in February 2019, GM issued a New Vehicle Limited Warranty (the “Warranty”) with bumper-to-bumper coverage for the earlier of 36 months or 36,000 miles and powertrain coverage for the earlier of 60 months or 100,000 miles.

7. Importantly, GM did not issue or provide any new or additional warranty coverage to Plaintiff or the vehicle when Plaintiff bought the Cruz in July 2017; Plaintiff received only the balance of coverages under the Warranty that GM issued back in August 2014.

(Separate Statement at pp. 2-3.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00309302-CU-BC-GDS: Jacqueline Ramirez vs. General Motors, LLC 04/13/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

Legal Standard

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication the Court engages in a three-step process.

First, the Court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.) Because a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 690, 694), all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings.

The Court cannot consider an unpleaded issue in ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.) The papers filed in response to a defendant's motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not create issues outside the pleadings and are not a substitute for an amendment to the pleadings. (Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342.) Indeed, it has often been noted that “[i]t would be patently unfair to allow plaintiffs to defeat [movant’s] summary judgment motion by allowing them to present a “moving target” unbounded by the pleadings.” (Melican v.

Regents of University of California, (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 168, 176-177 [brackets added].)

Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its burden. A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication bears the burden of persuasion that one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850, quoting CCP § 437c(p)(2).) A defendant is not required to conclusively negate one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action. (Saelzer v Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 780-781).

Rather, to meet its burden, the defendant is required to show only that the plaintiff cannot prove an element of its cause of action, i.e., that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence necessary to show this element. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 853-855.) Further, the initial burden requires a showing that the plaintiff “could not prevail on any theory raised by the pleadings.” (Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 936, 939-940.)

At the same time, a defendant cannot shift the burden to the plaintiff simply by suggesting the possibility that the plaintiff cannot prove its case; a moving defendant must still make “an affirmative showing” in support of its motion. (Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at 854-855 n.23; Addy v Bliss & Glennon (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 205, 214.)

Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00309302-CU-BC-GDS: Jacqueline Ramirez vs. General Motors, LLC 04/13/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

a material factual issue exists as to the cause of action alleged or a defense to it. (CCP § 437c(p); see, generally Bush v. Parents Without Partners (1993) 17 Cal. App. 4th 322, 326- 327.) In ruling on the motion, the Court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 843.)

Analysis

Summary Adjudication

GM submits a separate statement, but it does not list the issues it wishes to present for summary adjudication. Instead, the Separate Statement includes a caption that states, “Facts Common to All Causes of Action.” (Separate Statement, 2:1.)

GM does not list any additional undisputed facts in its Separate Statement and does not list the issues it wishes to moves to bring for summary adjudication in the Separate Statement.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(b), requires that each issue presented for summary adjudication be stated in the notice of motion and repeated verbatim in the separate statement. As the separate statement fails to state the issues it wishes the Court to adjudicate, GM’s motion for summary adjudication fails and is DENIED.

Summary Judgment

GM relies on UMFs 1-7, enumerated above, to support his argument that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on each of its five causes of action.

In the notice, GM states that it is entitled to judgment as to the fifth cause of action for fraudulent inducement - concealment “because the information that GM allegedly failed to disclose was publicly available.”

However, GM does not include any purported undisputed facts to support its contention that the information GM allegedly failed to disclose was publicly available. None of the UMFs relate in any way to the information GM allegedly failed to disclose.

As a result, GM has failed to meet its burden to establish that GM is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action.

Because GM cannot succeed as to its fifth cause of action, the Court’s analysis ends here. GM’s motion for summary judgment fails as it cannot dispose of each cause of action. GM’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00309302-CU-BC-GDS: Jacqueline Ramirez vs. General Motors, LLC 04/13/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8C

motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

Disposition

GM’s motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, is DENIED in its entirety.

Plaintiff shall submit a proposed order pursuant to CCP § 437c and CRC 3.1312.