Edna Lizeth Quiroga Arebalo v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, et al

The motion for judgment on the pleadings by Defendant Swickard Marin Corporation dba Mercedes-Benz of Marin (“MB Marin”) is granted with leave to amend.

Allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that on November 5, 2023, she leased a 2023 Mercedes-Benz EQB-Class and that she received certain warranties from Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. Plaintiff brought the vehicle in for repair on multiple occasions but defects, malfunctions, misadjustments and/or other nonconformities continue to exist. Plaintiff asserts causes of action against MB for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and breach of express warranty under the Song- Beverly Act. Plaintiff also asserts a cause of action for negligent repair against MB Marin.

Procedural Deficiencies

The Court draws Defendant’s attention to Local Rule 2.8(C)2, which requires attachment of the operative pleading as an exhibit to the motion for judgment on the pleadings. In addition, the declaration of Defendant’s counsel fails to show that Defendant adequately engaged in the meet and confer process as required under Code of Civil Procedure Section 439, which requires the moving party to “meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading . . . .” The motion for judgment on the pleadings will not be denied on this basis. (Code Civ. Proc. § 439(a)(4).) The Court nevertheless admonishes Defendant to follow all applicable rules when filing matters with the court.

Standard

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer . . . It is axiomatic that a demurrer lies only for defects appearing on the face of the pleadings. Consequently, when considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, [a]ll facts alleged in the complaint are deemed admitted . . . Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Sykora v. State Dept. of State Hospitals (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1535 [citations and internal quotations omitted].) A motion for judgment on the pleadings must be denied where there are material factual issues that require evidentiary resolution. (Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.)

Extrinsic Evidence

Because the presentation of extrinsic is not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court does not consider the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel in ruling on this motion.

Discussion

In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle had defects and nonconformities to warranty including engine, electrical and emission system defects. (Complaint, ¶11.) She brought the vehicle in for repairs on three occasions for the following issues: (1) the “Coolant Warning” light illuminating and an abnormal noise emitted from the engine bay, (2) a delay in the HVAC unit and the appearance of a “Blind Spot Assistance Inoperative” message, and (3) the HVAC unit not operating and difficulties in charging. (Id., ¶¶12-14.)

Plaintiff does not allege where she brought the vehicle for repair on these three occasions or what happened as a result of these visits. Plaintiff does allege that she brought the vehicle to MB Marin at some point and that MB Marin breached its duty to Plaintiff by failing to properly store, prepare, and repair the vehicle in accordance with industry standards. (Id., ¶51.) She further alleges that MB Marin’s negligent breach of its duties was the proximate cause of her damages. (Id., ¶52.) MB Marin demurs to the Third Cause of Action for negligent repair on the grounds that Plaintiff does not allege the requisite element of damages and it is barred by the economic loss rule.

The parties do not cite to any California case that directly addresses this issue in the vehicle repair context. Some federal district court decisions have allowed a plaintiff to proceed with his or her negligent repair claim based on the following exceptions to the economic loss rule: (1) there was a contract for services rather than goods, and/or (2) the defendant’s negligence caused damage to property other than the product itself. (See Sabicer v. Ford Motor Company, 362 F.Supp.3d 837, 841-842 (C.D.

Cal. 2019); Viloria v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2:24- cv-06945 MWC (AGRx), 2025 WL 3050218, *5 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2025); Luna v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-2354-ODW (ASx), 2020 WL 4383475, *2-3 (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2020); Cox v. FCA US LLC, Case No. CV 20-3098 DMG (Ex), 2020 WL 2857489, *3 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2020); Magana v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 19-cv-04347-BLF, 2019 WL 7165920, *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019); Krasner v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-01602-TLN- KJN, 2019 WL 1428116, *4 (E.D.

Cal. March 29, 2019).) Other decisions found that the plaintiff’s negligent repair claim was barred by the economic loss rule. (See In re Ford Motor Co. DPS6 Powershift Transmission Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 18-ML-02814 AB (FFMx), 2018 WL 5905942, 6 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2018); Ruiz v. BMW of N. Am., Case No. 2:16-cv-01177-ODW (AGRx), 2017 WL 217746, *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2017).) Another federal

district court case questioned the viability of the first exception in light of more recent California authority. (See Laub v. Horbaczewski, Case No. LA CV17-06210 JAK (KSx), 2024 WL 3466876 at n. 10 (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2024).)

MB Marin’s motion is granted. Plaintiff does not allege any actual repair by MB Marin, negligent or otherwise, or what issues she was experiencing with the vehicle when she brought it in for repair by MB Marin. She also does not allege what damages, if any, she suffered as a result of any repair by MB Marin. Further, even if the Court were to follow the cases applying exceptions to the economic loss rule, Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to support either exception. Plaintiff does not allege that she had a service contract with MB Marin and, in fact, indicates in her Opposition that she did not. (See Opp., p. 2:3-4.)

Plaintiff also does not allege that MB Marin’s negligence caused damage to property other than the product itself so as to support the second exception. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend to cure these deficiencies. If Plaintiff intends to amend her Complaint, she must allege specific facts about the reason(s) she brought the vehicle to MB Marin for repair, the repair(s) made by MB Marin, and any damages resulting from those repairs.

All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.

The Zoom appearance information for May, 2026 is as follows: https://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615487764?pwd=Ob4B5J7LLKcpnkxzJjjEOSHNzEGafG.1

Meeting ID: 161 548 7764 Passcode: 502070

If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: https://www.marin.courts.ca.gov