Motion for Summary Judgment Or, Alternatively, For Summary Adjudication
SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC24613675 - June 10, 2025 Hearing date: June 10, 2025 Case number: CGC24613675 Case title: LUIS ENRIQUE SANDOVAL FIGUEROA VS. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24613675 | Case Title: | | LUIS ENRIQUE SANDOVAL FIGUEROA VS. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-06-10 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Or, Alternatively, For Summary Adjudication | Rulings: | | Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Tuesday, June 10, 2025, line 6, DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Or, Alternatively, For Summary Adjudication (tentative ruling part 1 of 2)
Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted. As a matter of law, plaintiff cannot establish causes of action one through three (Song-Beverly Act claims).
"A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding." (Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(a)(1).) "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 of Civil Procedure section 437c(c).)
The moving party must make an initial showing, based upon affirmative evidence, that summary judgment must be granted. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Company (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) If the movant meets this initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists. The court liberally construes the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolves doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party. (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1039.) The moving party bears the burden of persuasion "from the commencement to conclusion" to show "that there is no triable issue of material fact and that [it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (Ibid.)
Plaintiff cannot establish causes of action one and three (express warranty claims). In Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189, 196
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Here, the undisputed evidence shows that plaintiff purchased the used vehicle from Bonander Buick/GMC. (Undisputed Material Facts ("UMF") 1-2.) Defendant was not a party to that transaction and it did not issue any new or additional warranty at the time of purchase. (Jensen Decl., Ex. D; UMF 6.)
In opposition, plaintiff attempts to paint defendant as a distributor or a substantial player in the sale transaction to shoehorn this case into the Song-Beverly Act. The attempt fails. Plaintiff merely demonstrates that Bonander Buick/GMC was a GM dealer and the cited SEC filing does not show that defendant was a distributor. (end of tentative ruling part 1, see part 2) = (302/CVA) | |