Williams Herrera Arenas v. Ford Motor Company et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230

DATE: 09/04/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 17CV320200 Pedro Tostado Diaz et. MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT al v. Luis Santiago et al. Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 1 LINE 2 24CV453642 Williams Herrera MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICTION Arenas v. Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 2 Ford Motor Company et al. LINE 3 25CV456971 Toeniskoetter MOTION TO EXPUNGE MECHANICS LIEN Constuction, Inc. v. VitroLabs Inc Notice of entry of dismissal filed 8/28/26 – Off Calendar LINE 4 25CV465349 Yiting Zhao et al PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION v. Dr. Yueyue Guo, Lac et al. Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 4 LINE 5 25CV476583 Jason Adair MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY v. Elisity, Inc. Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Lines 5-8 LINE 6 LINE 7 LINE 8 LINE 9 LINE 10 LINE 11 LINE 12

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 2 Case Name: Williams Herrera Arenas v. Ford Motor Co., et al. Case No.: 24-CV-453642

Motion for Summary Adjudication to the Complaint by Defendant Ford Motor Company

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an action for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Fraud by plaintiff Williams Herrera Arenas (“Plaintiff”) against defendants Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) and Frontier Ford (collectively, “Defendants”).

According to the complaint, on July 7, 2020, Plaintiff entered into a warranty contract with defendant Ford regarding a 2019 Ford Mustang (“vehicle” or “subject vehicle”), which was manufactured and/or distributed by Ford. (Complaint at ¶ 10.) The warranty contract contained various warranties, including but not limited to the bumper-to-bumper warranty, powertrain warranty, emission warranty, etc. (Id. at ¶ 11, Ex. A.)

Defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period, including but not limited to, transmission defects, engine defects, and electrical defects. (Complaint at ¶ 15.) For example, defendant Ford knew that vehicles equipped with the 10-speed transmission had one or more defects that can result in: (1) harsh and or hard shifting; and (2) jerking, shuddering, and/or juddering (“Transmission Defect”). (Id. at ¶¶ 26, 61.) These conditions present a safety hazard and are unreasonably dangerous to consumers because they can suddenly and unexpectedly affect the driver’s ability to control the vehicle’s speed, acceleration, deceleration, and/or overall responsiveness of the vehicle in various driving conditions. (Id. at ¶ 61.)

Under Song-Beverly, defendant Ford had an affirmative duty to promptly offer to repurchase or replace the vehicle at the time if it failed to conform to the terms of the express warranty after a reasonable number of repair attempts. (Complaint at ¶ 18.) Ford has failed to either promptly replace the vehicle or make restitution in accordance with Song-Beverly. (Id. at ¶ 19.)

Plaintiff also alleges defendant Ford committed fraud by allowing the vehicle to be sold without disclosing the Transmission Defect. (Complaint at ¶¶ 57-72.) Had Plaintiff known about the Transmission Defect, he would not have purchased the vehicle. (Id. at ¶¶ 63, 67.)

On December 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for:

(1) Violation of Subdivision (D) of Civil Code Section 1793.2; (2) Violation of Subdivision (B) of Civil Code Section 1793.2; (3) Violation of Subdivision (A)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2; (4) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability; (5) Fraudulent Inducement-Concealment; and (6) Negligent Repair.

On January 16, 2025, defendant Ford filed an answer generally denying allegations of the complaint and asserting affirmative defenses.

On June 9, 2026, defendant Ford filed the motion presently before the court, a motion for summary adjudication to the complaint. Plaintiff filed written opposition. Ford filed reply papers and evidentiary objections.

Trial is scheduled for October 5, 2026.

Motion for Summary Adjudication

Defendant Ford moves for summary adjudication of the fifth cause of action on the ground that Plaintiff lacks necessary evidence showing that: (1) the subject vehicle was manufactured with a Transmission Defect; and (2) Ford knew of the Transmission Defect and concealed the defect, inducing Plaintiff into purchasing the vehicle.

Ford’s Evidentiary Objections

“In determining if the papers show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact, the court shall consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers, except the evidence to which objections have been made and sustained by the court...” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

“In granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion. Objections to evidence that are not ruled on for purposes of the motion shall be preserved for appellate review.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).)

In reply, Ford filed objections to evidence submitted with the opposition papers. The court however declines to rule on the objections as they are not material to the outcome of the motion for reasons explained below.

Legal Standard

Any party may move for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843 (Aguilar).) “The motion for 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) “The object of the summary judgment procedure is ‘to cut through the parties’ pleadings’ to determine whether trial is necessary to resolve their dispute. [Citation.]” (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1020 (Spinks).)

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact...” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.) “A prima facie showing is one that is sufficient to support the position of the party in question.” (Id. at p. 851.)

If a moving defendant makes the necessary initial showing, the burden of production shifts to the plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); see Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.)

Throughout the process, the trial court “must consider all of the evidence and all of the inferences drawn therefrom.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 856.) The moving party’s evidence is strictly construed, while the opponent’s is liberally construed. (Id. at p. 843.)

Similarly, “[a] party may seek summary adjudication on whether a cause of action, affirmative defense, or punitive damages claim has merit or whether a defendant owed a duty to a plaintiff. [Citation.] ‘A motion for summary adjudication...shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment.’ [Citation.]” (California Bank & Trust v. Lawlor (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 625, 630.)

“[S]ummary judgment (or summary adjudication) is a drastic remedy and should be used with caution. [Citation.] Because summary judgment is a drastic procedure all doubts as to the propriety of granting a motion for summary judgment should be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. [Citations.]” (Tully v. World Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 654, 660; see Kernan v. Regents of University of California (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 675, 684 [“The drastic remedy of summary judgment may not be granted unless reasonable minds can draw only one conclusion from the evidence.”].)

Ford’s Evidence

The motion for summary adjudication is directed to the fifth cause of action for fraudulent inducement – concealment.

“[T]he elements of an action for fraud and deceit based on concealment are: (1) the defendant must have concealed or suppressed a material fact, (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage.” (Marketing West, Inc. v. Sanyo Fisher (USA) Corp. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 603, 612-613.)

“Defendants moving for summary judgment (or summary adjudication) may satisfy their initial burden either by producing evidence of a complete defense or by showing the plaintiff’s inability to establish a required element of the case. [Citations.]” (Spinks, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1021.)

Defendant Ford argues Plaintiff cannot prove the necessary elements for fraudulent inducement – concealment. Specifically, that Plaintiff lacks evidence showing that: (1) the subject vehicle was manufactured with a Transmission Defect; and (2) Ford knew of the Transmission Defect and concealed the defect, inducing Plaintiff into purchasing the vehicle. In support, Ford relies primarily on Plaintiff’s factually devoid discovery responses.

A moving party on a motion for summary judgment (or summary adjudication) may rely on factually devoid discovery responses to shift the burden of proof. (Lopez v. Super. Ct. (1996)

45 Cal.App.4th 705, 713.) Once the burden shifts as a result of the factually devoid discovery responses, the opposing party must set forth specific facts which prove the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Ibid.)

For example, in Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573 (Union Bank), cited in the moving papers, the defendant supported its motion for summary judgment with the plaintiff’s answers to requests for admissions and interrogatories. (Union Bank, supra, at pp. 577-578.) The defendant’s interrogatories asked plaintiff to state all facts and to identify all witnesses and documents which supported the plaintiff’s cause of action for fraud. (Id. at p. 578.) The plaintiff replied only that he “believe[d]” the defendant “knowingly and fraudulently” committed certain allegedly deceitful acts. (Ibid.)

The Court of Appeal concluded these “factually devoid” discovery responses were enough to meet the defendant’s obligation under section 437c, subdivision (o)(2), to show that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established. (Union Bank, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at pp. 592-593.) Consequently, the burden shifted to plaintiff to proffer admissible evidence which disclosed the existence of a triable factual issue about whether the defendant committed the alleged fraud. (Id. at p. 593.)

Here, defendant Ford submits Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories nos. 13-15 which require Plaintiff to state all facts and identify all persons and documents that support the fifth cause of action. (See Ford’s Sep. Stmt. of Undisputed Facts at Nos. 9-11.) The court finds these responses to be factually devoid as Plaintiff fails to provide evidence demonstrating the subject vehicle was manufactured with a Transmission Defect and that Ford knew of the Transmission Defect and concealed the defect from him.

Ford also submits evidence of Plaintiff’s document production, consisting of 34 total pages including: (1) the Retail Installment Sales Contract and related sales documents; (2) loan payment information; (3) some repair orders for the subject vehicle; (4) Plaintiff’s insurance identification card; and (5) the subject vehicle’s registration card. (Id. at Fact No. 12; Hollenbeck Decl. at Ex. D.) None of these documents prove the necessary elements to support a claim for fraudulent inducement – concealment.

Thus, as defendant Ford has met its initial burden, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to raise a triable issue of material fact.

Plaintiff’s Evidence

A triable issue of material fact exists “if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier 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, fn. omitted.) If the plaintiff opposing summary judgment presents evidence demonstrating the existence of a disputed material fact, the motion must be denied. (Id. at p. 856.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues defendant Ford had prior knowledge of the Transmission Defect in the form of four Technical Service Bulletins (“TSB”). (See Plaintiff’s Additional Facts at Nos. 5-8.) Plaintiff however fails to submit TSB 24-2101 with his opposition papers. And though Ford submits a copy of TSB 24-2101 with its reply papers, the document does not assist Plaintiff as it was issued on March 28, 2024, almost four years after Plaintiff purchased his

vehicle. As to the remaining TSB, as pointed out in reply, these do not relate to Plaintiff’s vehicle and thus fail to address whether Ford had knowledge of the Transmission Defect. Plaintiff also provides his own declaration in support of his opposition. But, Plaintiff’s declaration does not substantively address whether the subject vehicle was manufactured with a Transmission Defect and if Ford knew of the Transmission Defect and concealed the defect from him. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s remaining arguments regarding duty to disclose, reliance, and materiality are simply irrelevant to the instant motion for summary adjudication. The court therefore finds that Plaintiff fails to raise a triable issue of material fact to defeat the motion for summary adjudication.

Plaintiff’s Request to Conduct Further Discovery

In the alternative, Plaintiff requests a continuance of the summary adjudication hearing to complete discovery of Ford’s pre-purchase knowledge in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h) which states:

“If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just. The application to continue the motion to obtain necessary discovery may also be made by ex parte motion at any time on or before the date the opposition response to the motion is due.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (h).)

“When a party makes a good faith showing by affidavit demonstrating that a continuance is necessary to obtain essential facts to oppose a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must grant the continuance request. [Citation.] ‘Continuance of a summary judgment hearing is not mandatory, however, when no affidavit is submitted or when the submitted affidavit fails to make the necessary showing under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 437c, subdivision (h). [Citations.]’ ” (Park v. First American Title Co. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1428.)

“An opposing party’s declaration in support of a motion to continue the summary judgment hearing should show the following: (1) ‘Facts establishing a likelihood that controverting evidence may exist and why the information sought is essential to opposing the motion’; (2) ‘The specific reasons why such evidence cannot be presented at the present time’; (3) ‘An estimate of the time necessary to obtain such evidence’; and (4) ‘The specific steps or procedures the opposing party intends to utilize to obtain such evidence.’ [Citation.]” (Johnson v. Alameda County Medical Center (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 521, 532 (Johnson).)

“ ‘Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h) requires more than a simple recital that “facts essential to justify opposition may exist.” ’ [Citation.] ‘The statute cannot be employed as a device to get an automatic continuance by every unprepared party who simply files a declaration stating that unspecified essential facts may exist. The party seeking the continuance must justify the need, by detailing both the particular essential facts that may exist and the specific reasons why they cannot then be presented.’ [Citation.]” (Johnson, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 532.)

“Where a plaintiff cannot make the showing required under section 437c, subdivision (h), a plaintiff may seek a continuance under the ordinary discretionary standard applied to requests for a continuance. [Citation.] This requires a showing of good cause. [Citation.] ‘[I]n deciding whether to continue a summary judgment to permit additional discovery courts consider various factors, including (1) how long the case has been pending; (2) how long the requesting party had to oppose the motion; (3) whether the continuance motion could have been made earlier; (4) the proximity of the trial date or the 30-day discovery cutoff before trial; (5) any prior continuances for the same reason; and (6) the question whether the evidence sought is truly essential to the motion.’ [Citation.]” (Hamilton v. Orange County Sheriff’s Dept. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 759, 765.)

Here, Plaintiff seeks further discovery of Ford’s own internal engineering, pre-production testing, and warranty claims records concerning when Ford first identified the Transmission Defect. (See OPP at p. 12:11-21.) But, even though the opposition includes a declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel, the declaration does not address the necessary factors for a mandatory continuance under section 437c, subdivision (h). Nor does Plaintiff qualify for a continuance under the discretionary standard as he fails to demonstrate good cause in connection with any of the factors set forth above. The court thus concludes that Plaintiff is not entitled to a continuance of the motion for summary adjudication to conduct further discovery.

Consequently, the motion for summary adjudication to the fifth cause of action is GRANTED.

Disposition

The motion for summary adjudication to the fifth cause of action against defendant Ford is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request to continue the hearing on the motion for summary adjudication to conduct further discovery is DENIED.

The court will prepare the Order.

- oo0oo -