Carlos Velasquez v. Ford Motor Company et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: August 27, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

9:00 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 24CV445456 North Mill Equipment Plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer of Ryan Peacock, Inc. Finance, LLC et al. v. Notice is proper and the motion is unopposed. The basis for the RYAN PEACOCK et al. motion is that a corporation cannot be self-represented. The corporation had counsel when it filed the answer. The court subsequently granted a motion by that counsel to withdraw. The corporate defendant’s failure to appear through counsel at future hearings (including the order to show cause hearing at 10:00 a.m. on August 27, 2026) may lead to the striking of the answer.

But plaintiff provides no authority to strike an answer filed by corporate counsel. The motion is DENIED. The court will prepare the order. Line 2 24CV447855 William Wortz v. Lea Click LINE 2 or scroll down for ruling. Schlemmer Line 3 24CV453911 Carlos Velasquez v. Ford Click LINE 3 or scroll down for ruling. Motor Company et al.

Calendar Line 3 Case Name: Carlos Velasquez v. Ford Motor Company, et al. Case No.: 24CV453911

This is an action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act brought by plaintiff Carlos Velasquez (Plaintiff) against defendants Ford Motor Company (Ford) and Aaron Ford of Lake Elsinore.

Plaintiff filed the original and still operative complaint in December 2024. The Complaint alleges Plaintiff purchased a new 2023 Ford Maverick (Subject Vehicle) under warranty in February 2023. (Complaint, ¶ 7.) The complaint alleges on information and belief that Ford knew that vehicles equipped with the same 2.5L engine as the Subject Vehicle suffered “from one or more defects that can result in loss of power, stalling, engine running rough, engine misfires, failure or replacement of the engine.” (Id. at ¶ 53.)

The Complaint alleges six causes of action: (1) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d) (against Ford only); (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b) (against Ford only); (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3) (against Ford only); (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (against Ford only); (5) negligent repair (against Aaron Ford of Lake Elsinore only); and (6) fraudulent inducement— concealment (against Ford only). A copy of the warranty is attached as exhibit A to the complaint. Trial is set for September 28, 2026.

At issue is Ford’s motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action for fraudulent inducement—concealment. No timely opposition was filed.

LEGAL STANDARD—SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

The pleadings limit the issues presented for summary judgment or summary adjudication. Such a motion may not be granted or denied based on issues not raised by the pleadings. (Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1258; Nieto v. Blue Shield of Calif. Life & Health Ins. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 60, 73.) The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 (Aguilar).)

A motion for summary judgment or adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of an entire cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an “issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1); McClasky v. California State Auto. Ass’n (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 947, 975; Palm Spring Villas II Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 288.)

“A defendant seeking summary judgment must show that at least one element of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” “The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show there is a triable issue of material fact on that issue.” (Alex R. Thomas & Co. v. Mutual Service Casualty Ins. Co. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 66, 72, internal citations omitted.) “There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable finder of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.) While the same standards of admissibility govern both 9

sides’ supporting evidence, the opposition evidence is liberally construed while the moving party’s evidence is strictly construed. (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 768.) The evidence must be liberally construed in support of the opposing party, resolving any doubts in favor of that party. (Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1037.)

A reply “shall not include any new evidentiary matter, additional material facts, or separate statement submitted with the reply and not presented in the moving papers or opposing papers.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(4); Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-38; Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252.)

DISCUSSION

Ford moves for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action for fraudulent inducement—concealment. Ford argues Plaintiff has no evidence to support findings: (1) that the Subject Vehicle was manufactured with an engine defect; or (2) that Ford knew of concealed the defect. (Notice of Motion and Motion, p. 2:8-11.)

To obtain summary adjudication on the basis that a plaintiff has no evidence to establish an essential element of a claim, the moving party must support the motion with discovery admissions or other admissible evidence demonstrating that “plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 854-855.) “[A] defendant cannot simply ‘argue’ that a plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence to establish [a required element of his or her claim]; the defendant must make an affirmative ‘showing’ that the plaintiff cannot do so.” (Andrews v.

Foster Wheeler LLC (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96, 103.) When relying on “factually devoid” discovery responses, the defendant must show that “discovery was sufficiently comprehensive, and plaintiffs’ responses so devoid of facts, as to lead to the inference that plaintiffs could not prove [a required element of their claim] upon a stringent review of the direct, circumstantial and inferential evidence contained in their [discovery responses].” (Id. at p. 107, citing Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Construction Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 83.)

Ford propounded special interrogatories asking Plaintiff to “state all facts”, “identify all persons”, and “identify all documents” supporting their fraudulent concealment cause of action. (Ford’s undisputed material facts (UMF), Nos. 6, 8.) Plaintiff responded by referring to the Complaint and his 31-page document production. (UMF, Nos. 9-12.) Plaintiff’s reference to the Complaint is insufficient. (See Andrews, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 107 [“If plaintiffs respond to comprehensive interrogatories seeking all known facts with boilerplate answers that restate their allegations...the burden of production will almost certainly be shifted to them once defendants move for summary judgment and properly present plaintiffs’ factually devoid discovery responses.”].)

The 31-page document production consists of the Retail Installment Sales Contract; repair orders for the Subject Vehicle; Plaintiff’s insurance card and registration; monthly payment information; recall notices; and the Subject Vehicle’s window sticker showing its price, features, and gas mileage. (UMF, No. 12.) The recall notices were issued after Plaintiff purchased the Subject Vehicle. (Hollenbeck Decl., Ex. D, pp. 28-30.) Neither Plaintiff’s discovery responses nor the document production demonstrate that Ford knew of any engine defect before Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle.

Because Plaintiff did not file any opposition to the motion, he has not raised any triable issue of material fact about Ford’s knowledge of an engine defect. Ford is therefore entitled summary adjudication of the sixth cause of action. The court does not reach Ford’s alternative argument that Plaintiff has no evidence that the Subject Vehicle was manufactured with an engine defect.

CONCLUSION

Ford’s motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action for fraudulent inducement—concealment is GRANTED.

The court will prepare the order.

- oo0oo -

11