Burtin vs. Tanner

9. Burtin vs. Tanner

25-01504831

Motion to Deem Facts Admitted

VACATED 10. Zamarron vs. General Motors LLC

25-01510394

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Defendant General Motors LLC’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings against the entire complaint or as to any of the causes of action stated therein if the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(b), (c)(1)(B)(ii).) “A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed.” (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.)

First Cause of Action – Violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

“Magnuson-Moss governs warranties for consumer products distributed in interstate commerce. It requires disclosures in connection with written warranties, regulates the substantive content of warranties, and establishes a federal cause of action for breach of a written or an implied warranty (15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)), among other provisions.” (Orichian v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 226 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1330, as modified (July 1, 2014).)

As such, to state a claim under Magnuson-Moss, a plaintiff must adequately plead a cause of action for breach of written or implied warranty under state law. (See Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (9th Cir. 2008) 534 F.3d 1017, 1022 [“The district court held—and Clemens does not dispute—that the claims under the Magnuson–Moss Act stand or fall with his express and implied warranty claims under state law.”].) (See also Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 824, 833 [“failure to state a warranty claim under state law necessarily constituted a failure to state a claim under Magnuson–Moss.”]).

Plaintiffs’ claim for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act is based on breaches of express and implied warranties “by virtue of the abovedescribed acts.” (Complaint, ¶ 14.) The Complaint, however, is devoid of any allegations regarding what alleged defects rendered the Subject Vehicle unsafe for use.