JACKSON, et al. vs BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC., et al.

24CV026518: JACKSON, et al. vs BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC., et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Please take notice, Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil- Sakauye Courthouse. The new courthouse is located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant BMW of North America, LLC’s (“BMW”) motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication is UNOPPOSED and ruled upon as follows.

This is a Lemon Law action arising from plaintiffs Latoya Jackson and James Durrah’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) purchase of a used, Certified Pre-Owned 2020 BMW (the “Subject Vehicle”) from BMW of Bakersfield (the “Dealer) on March 18, 2023.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts four causes of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, (1) violation of section 1793.2(d), (2) violation of section 1793.2(b), (3) violation of section 1793.2(a)(3), and (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (Civil Code sections 1791.1, 1794, and 1795.5) and a fifth cause of action for fraudulent inducement – concealment.

BMW’s Notice of Motion seeks summary adjudication as follows:

1. BMW NA is entitled to summary adjudication, as a matter of law, on the First Cause of Action for violation of the Civil Code section 1793.2(d) – Breach of Express Warranty, because Song Beverly only applies to purchasers/lessors of a new motor vehicle and Plaintiff purchased a used car for which a new car warranty was not issued.

2. BMW NA is entitled to summary adjudication, as a matter of law, on the Second Cause of Action for violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(b), because Song Beverly only applies to purchasers/lessors of a new motor vehicle and Plaintiff purchased a used car for which a new car warranty was not issued.

3. BMW NA is entitled to summary adjudication, as a matter of law, on Plaintiffs’ Third Cause of Action for violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(a)(3), because Song Beverly only applies to purchasers/lessors of a new motor vehicle.

24CV026518: JACKSON, et al. vs BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC., et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16C

4. BMW NA is entitled to summary adjudication, as a matter of law, on Plaintiffs’ Fourth Cause of Action for Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civil Code sections 1791.1, 1794, 1795.5), because section 1791.1 only applies to new cars - not the used Subject Vehicle, BMW NA [is] a distributor and not subject to liability for breach of implied warranty under Song Beverly for new cars, and because there is no evidence that BMW NA distributed, sold or leased the Subject Vehicle to Plaintiff as a used vehicle which is necessary for liability under section 1795.5.

5. BMW NA is entitled to summary adjudication, as a matter of law, on Plaintiffs’ Sixth Cause of Action for fraudulent inducement - concealment because BMW NA did not owe him a duty to disclose and recovery in tort is barred by the economic loss rule.

(Notice of Motion at 2:26-3:18.)

Legal Standard

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication the Court engages in a three-step process. First, the Court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.) The papers filed in response to a defendant's motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not create issues outside the pleadings and are not a substitute for an amendment to the pleadings. (Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342.)

Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its burden. A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication bears the burden of persuasion that one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850, quoting Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).) A defendant is not required to conclusively negate one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action. (Saelzer v Advance, Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 780- 781).

Rather, to meet its burden, the defendant is only required to show that the plaintiff cannot prove an element of its cause of action, i.e., that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence necessary to show this element. (Aguilar, supra, at 853-855.) Further, the initial burden requires a showing that the plaintiff “could not prevail on any theory raised by the pleadings.” (Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 936, 939-940.)

Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV026518: JACKSON, et al. vs BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC., et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16C

show that a material factual issue exists as to the cause of action alleged or a defense to it. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p); see, generally Bush v. Parents Without Partners (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 322, 326-327.) In ruling on the motion, the Court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. (Aguilar, supra, at 843.)

Discussion

As to BMW’s alternative request for summary adjudication, BMW has failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 437c and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350. BMW’s separate statement contains two sections at the top. The first section is titled “MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,” which states the basis for which BMW seeks summary judgment and the second section is titled “MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION,” which repeats the portion of BMW’s notice of motion quoted above. What follows is a single group of eight asserted undisputed material facts.

This does not constitute a proper separate statement in support of summary adjudication. Rule 3.1350 provides that the separate statement must separately identify each cause of action that is the subject of the motion and each supporting material fact claimed to be without dispute with respect to the cause of action. The proper format is also specifically set forth via subsection (h). Grouping all of the issues together in a single paragraph followed by a single group of “common facts” does not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure or with rule 3.1350.

The Court finds that the deficiencies warrant denial of BMW’s motion for summary adjudication and the motion is therefore DENIED on such grounds.

As to the motion for summary judgment, BMW relies on the following eight undisputed material facts:

1. Plaintiffs purchased a used, Certified Pre-Owned (“CPO”), 2020 BMW 530, VIN WBAJR3C06LWW70528 (the “Subject Vehicle”) from BMW of Bakersfield (“Dealer”), with 14,884 miles on the odometer, on March 18, 2023. (UMF 1.)

2. BMW was not a party to the contract. (UMF 2.)

3. The Subject Vehicle was purchased as a new car on or about March 6, 2020, with coverage under the New Vehicle Limited Warranty (“NVLW”) beginning on February 24, 2020. (UMF 3.)

4. BMW’s 2020 BMW 3 Series 3, 5 Series, New Vehicle Limited Warranty (“NVLM”) itself confirms that the warranty begins when the vehicle is first put into service, which was February 24, 2020. (UMF 4.)

5. Plaintiffs were not provided with a new car warranty by BMW or the Dealer at the time Plaintiffs purchased the Subject Vehicle on or about March 18, 2023. The NVLW was still in effect at the time Plaintiffs purchased the Subject Vehicle. The expiration date for the NVLM was February 24, 2024, or at 50,000 miles

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV026518: JACKSON, et al. vs BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC., et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16C

which ever occurred first. (UMF 5.)

6. The Subject Vehicle was covered by a Certified Pre-Owned Warranty (“CPO”) which expired on February 24, 2025. (UMF 6.)

7. CPO warranties are only issued to used, CPO vehicles and are not new car warranties. The coverage provided by CPO warranties is substantially more limited than in the NVLM. (UMF 7.)

8. BMW is a distributor, not a manufacturer. BMW distributed the Subject Vehicle when it was new. BMW does not distribute used cars as used cars nor leases or sells used cars as used cars. (UMF 8.)

Based on the above facts, BMW argues that Plaintiff’s first, second, and third causes of action for breach of express warranty fail pursuant to recent case law from the California Supreme Court, Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189, which held that a used vehicle purchaser who did not receive a warranty from the vehicle’s manufacturer cannot pursue breach of express warranty claims under Song-Beverly against the manufacturer because Song-Beverly’s express warranty provisions apply only to “new motor vehicles,” not to a used vehicle acquired with some balance of its original warranty. (Rodriguez, supra, 17 Cal.5th at 206.)

As to the fourth cause of action for breach of implied warranty, BMW contends it fails because the Song-Beverly implied warranties do not apply to manufacturers in the sale of used goods. (See Civ. Code, § 1795.5; Nunez v. FCA US LLC (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 385, 399 [analyzing Cal. Civ. Code, § 1795.5 and concluding: “It is evident from these provisions that only distributors or sellers of used goods—not manufacturers of new goods—have implied warranty obligations in the sale of used goods”].) Simply put, “only distributors and retail sellers, not manufacturers, are liable for breach of implied warranties in the sale of a used car.” (Nunez, supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at 399.)

The Court is not persuaded that the decision in Rodriguez, supra, eliminates all remedies available to the purchasers of used vehicles who receive only the balance remaining on warranties accompanying the original sale. Thus, BMW has failed to satisfy its initial burden on its motion for summary judgment with respect to this argument.

The Act requires manufacturers of consumer goods in this state, who provide express warranties for those goods, to maintain service and repair facilities in this state and to service and repair nonconforming goods within a reasonable time. (Civil Code § 1793.2(b).) If the manufacturer or its representative fails to service or repair the consumer good after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer must either replace the good or reimburse the buyer. (Civil Code § 1793.2(d).) For most consumer goods, the manufacturer may choose between replacing the nonconforming good or reimbursing the buyer in the amount of the purchase price “less that amount directly

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV026518: JACKSON, et al. vs BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC., et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16C

attributable to use by the buyer.” (Civil Code § 1792.2(d)(1).) For nonconforming new motor vehicles, the Legislature has provided buyers with an enhanced remedy, including the right to elect restitution in lieu of replacement, a more favorable calculation of the amount of restitution, and additional requirements on manufacturers when the vehicle is replaced. (Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2).)

Whether enhanced remedies under Civil Code section 1793.2(d)(2) are available depends on whether a vehicle is a new motor vehicle, as defined by Civil Code § 1793.22(e)(2). In Rodriguez, supra, the California Supreme Court resolved a split in authority regarding the interpretation of Civil Code section 1793.22(e)(2). In doing so, the California Supreme Court determined that subdivision (d)(2) of section 1793.2 applies only when the new car express warranty is issued along with the sale of a vehicle and that section 1793.2 does not extend protection to the purchaser of used vehicles who merely receive the balance of a previously-issued “new car” warranty. (Rodriguez, supra, 17 Cal.5th at pp. 196, 206.) Thus, the purchaser of a used vehicle is not entitled to the enhanced protections of Civil Code section 1793.2(d)(2).

However, the only issue actually decided by the Supreme Court in Rodriguez was the interpretation of Civil Code section 1793.22(e)(2). (Rodriguez, supra, at 206.) By its plain language, Civil Code section 1793.22(e)(2) is applicable only to subdivision (d) of section 1793.2 and, similarly, only subdivision (d)(2) of section 1793.2 references a “new” motor vehicle. The remaining portions of section 1793.2, including subdivisions (a)(3), (b), or (d)(1) contain no such limitation. For example, section 1793.2(d)(1) applies to all “goods” and requires the manufacturer to replace the goods or reimburse the buyer if they cannot be repaired to conform to express warranties.

Subdivision (d)(2) offers extra protections to a purchaser of “a new motor vehicle,” including a requirement that the manufacturer act promptly, the right to elect restitution in lieu of replacement, the requirement that the replacement vehicle be accompanied by the issuance of new express and implied warranties, and a different formula for calculating the amount of restitution. While these additional protections are unavailable to the purchaser of a used motor vehicle, nothing in Rodriguez indicates that the purchaser of a used motor vehicle is not entitled to the lesser remedies provided by section 1793.2(d)(1).

The moving papers do not cite to any authority indicating that the purchaser of a used vehicle may not pursue remedies under subdivisions (a)(3), (b), or (d)(1) of Civil Code section 1793.2. Thus, BMW has failed to meet its initial burden to show Plaintiffs cannot prevail on its second or third causes of action asserted. Accordingly, the burden never shifted to Plaintiffs to create a triable issue of material fact with respect to this argument.

Therefore, the Court finds BMW has failed to meet its initial burden to show Plaintiff cannot prevail on all of the causes of action asserted. The failure to dispose of all causes of action necessarily precludes summary judgment. Summary judgment may

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV026518: JACKSON, et al. vs BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC., et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16C

be granted where it is shown that the “action has no merit” and summary judgment lies only where the opponent has no case at all. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c); 24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1215.)

Because BMW has failed to satisfy its initial burden as to all of the causes of action, the motion for summary judgment is DENIED. As discussed earlier, because BMW did not properly notice or provide a compliant separate statement in support of an alternative motion for summary adjudication, this Court need not consider the merits of BMW’s specific contentions pertaining to summary adjudication.

BMW’s motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication is DENIED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID 16030877014. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV026518: JACKSON, et al. vs BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC., et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16C

Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.