Duran vs. Starbucks Corporation

54 El vs. Hyundai Motor America

25-01471426 1. Demurrer to Amended Complaint 2. Motion to Strike Portions Of Complaint

The Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint brought by Defendant Hyundai Motor America is OVERRULED, in whole.

Defendant’s unopposed Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED, pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h).

Initially, Defendant challenges the First through Third Causes of Action, solely on the basis the same are barred by the six-year statute of limitations provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 871.21. (Demurrer: 5:22-7:8 [ROA No. 86].) Defendant challenges the Fourth Cause of Action, on the same basis. (Ibid.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.21, subdivision (b), “an action covered by Section 871.20 shall not be brought later than six years after the date of original delivery of the motor vehicle.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 871.21, subd. (b).)

Although disputed by Plaintiff, all four of Plaintiff’s Song-Beverly claims are encompassed within Code of Civil Procedure section 871.20, as this provision expressly references claims brought pursuant to Civil Code section 1794, as well as requests for civil penalties thereunder. (Code Civ. Proc., § 871.20, subd. (a).)

While the Third Cause of Action alleges Plaintiff was injured by Defendant’s violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3), Plaintiff nonetheless indicates he “brings this Cause of Action pursuant to Civil Code section 1794.” (¶63 of FAC [ROA No. 64].) This is sufficient to bring the claim within Code of Civil Procedure section 871.20. (See Soro v. FCA US, LLC (S.D. Cal. 2026) 2026 WL 473050, at p. 4.)

Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff purchased his vehicle on August 22, 2017. (¶6 of FAC [ROA No. 64].) Additionally, a review of the record confirms that Plaintiff initiated this action more than 6 years later, on March 28, 2025. (See ROA No. 2.)

Nonetheless, Plaintiff persuasively asserts that application of Code of Civil Procedure section 871.21 within this action, would be improperly retroactive.