On November 30, 2021 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Hohl, Lakiesha,
Hohl, Louis,
and
Does 1 To 10,
General Motors Llc,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
\w ”\D “REAL V
Paul R. Johnson, No. 11581 7
pjoh nson@kslaw. com
KING & SPALDING LLP E
SUPERIOR Cc U“ T OF )
633 W. 5th Street, Suite 1600 COUNTY OF SAN BERCNARAUFDOISSIA
SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
Los Angeles, California 90071
(A&UJN
+1 213 443 4355 JUL 2 8 2023
+1 213 443 4310 (fax)
vi
Troy D. McMahan, No. 148694 BY /
908 ‘x
tmcmahcm@kslaw. com Elan. ospury
KING & SPALDING LLP GL3
50 California Street, Suite 3300
San Francisco, California 941 11
OOOONQ
+1 415 318 1200
+1 415 318 1300 (fax)
Mary Arens McBride, No. 282459
ERSKINE LAW GROUP, APC
1592 N. Batavia Street, 1A
11 Orange, CA 92867
+1 949 777 6032
12 +1 714 844 9035 (fax)
13 Attorneys for Defendant
GENERAL MOTORS LLC
14
15
SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA
16
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
17
LOUIS HOHL, an individual, and LAKIESHA Case No. CIVSBZl333l6
18 HOHL, an individual,
Assignedfor all purposes t0 the Hon. Jeflrey
19 Plaintiffs,
R. Erickson in Dept. 5'14
20
REPLY SUPPORT 0F MOTION 0F GENERAL
IN
V.
21
MOTORS LLC FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
0R, 1N THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ct al.,
ADJUDICATION
22
23 Defendants.
Date: August 3. 2023
Time: 8:30 am
24
Dept.: Sl4
25 Before the Hon. Jeffrey R. Erickson
26 Action filed: November 30, 2021
Trial date: September 5, 2023
27
28
1
GM’s reply in support of its motion for summary judgment etc.
Plaintiffs‘ request to postpone summary judgment to commence an immaterial area
of discovery has no legal merit. General Motors LLC (GM) moved for summary judgment
on simple grounds: Plaintiffs did not purchase their vehicle new and, thus, cannot show that
UI-hbJN
the Song—Beverly Act applies. Plaintiffs Cite no authority to support the legal viability of a
Song—Beverly claim brought against an original manufacturer of used vehicles. (Compare
generally Serrano decl. with GM’s motion at 9: 19—10:6 [citing authority].)
Plaintiffs instead attempt to side-step the relevant legal issue and argue they need
more time for more discovery because, they say, they “have identified the presence of
”
special warranty coverage No. N182202780. (Serrano decl. at 2: 1 7—18.) This delay tactic is
10 no barrier to summary judgment.
11 The special warranty coverage cited by Plaintiffs was not a term of their purchase of
12 the Tahoe from Rock Honda as a used vehicle. (See GM’s Exhibit A [sale contract].) GM
13 was not a party to that transaction. Instead, by its terms, GM independently issued the
14 special coverage for the vehicle, regardless of who owned it, for the reasons described—and
15 for a period (10 years or 150,000 miles) calculated from the original sale of the Tahoe.
16 (Serrano decl., Ex. A [“General Motors is providing you with the additional special
17 coverage outlined in this letter. . .
"; “within 10 years of the date your vehicle was originally
18 placed in service or 150,000 miles (240,000 km), whichever occurs f'1rst”]; accord GM’s
19 Exhibit D, “View Vehicle Summary” [to 11/04/2026 or 150,009 miles].)
20 Plaintiffs still fall squarely within the ambit of vehicle owners who have no claim
21 under Song—Beverly—i.e., vehicle owners who purchased a “previously sold car[]
22 accompanied by some balance of the original warranty.” (Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022)
23 77 Cal.App.5th 209, 225, review granted (July l3, 2022, 8274625).) The subsequent
24 issuance of the special coverage did nothing to transform Plaintiffs’ used vehicle purchase
25 into the purchase of a new vehicle “with a new or full express warranty,” which is required
26
27
28
2
GM’s reply in support of its motion for summary judgment etc.
Document Filed Date
July 28, 2023
Case Filing Date
November 30, 2021
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
\w ”\D “REAL V Paul R. Johnson, No. 11581 7 pjoh nson@kslaw. com KING & SPALDING LLP E SUPERIOR Cc U“ T OF ) 633 W. 5th Street, Suite 1600 COUNTY OF SAN BERCNARAUFDOISSIA SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT Los Angeles, California 90071 (A&UJN +1 213 443 4355 JUL 2 8 2023 +1 213 443 4310 (fax) vi Troy D. McMahan, No. 148694 BY / 908 ‘x tmcmahcm@kslaw. com Elan. ospury KING & SPALDING LLP GL3 50 California Street, Suite 3300 San Francisco, California 941 11 OOOONQ +1 415 318 1200 +1 415 318 1300 (fax) Mary Arens McBride, No. 282459 ERSKINE LAW GROUP, APC 1592 N. Batavia Street, 1A 11 Orange, CA 92867 +1 949 777 6032 12 +1 714 844 9035 (fax) 13 Attorneys for Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC 14 15 SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA 16 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 17 LOUIS HOHL, an individual, and LAKIESHA Case No. CIVSBZl333l6 18 HOHL, an individual, Assignedfor all purposes t0 the Hon. Jeflrey 19 Plaintiffs, R. Erickson in Dept. 5'14 20 REPLY SUPPORT 0F MOTION 0F GENERAL IN V. 21 MOTORS LLC FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 0R, 1N THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ct al., ADJUDICATION 22 23 Defendants. Date: August 3. 2023 Time: 8:30 am 24 Dept.: Sl4 25 Before the Hon. Jeffrey R. Erickson 26 Action filed: November 30, 2021 Trial date: September 5, 2023 27 28 1 GM’s reply in support of its motion for summary judgment etc. Plaintiffs‘ request to postpone summary judgment to commence an immaterial area of discovery has no legal merit. General Motors LLC (GM) moved for summary judgment on simple grounds: Plaintiffs did not purchase their vehicle new and, thus, cannot show that UI-hbJN the Song—Beverly Act applies. Plaintiffs Cite no authority to support the legal viability of a Song—Beverly claim brought against an original manufacturer of used vehicles. (Compare generally Serrano decl. with GM’s motion at 9: 19—10:6 [citing authority].) Plaintiffs instead attempt to side-step the relevant legal issue and argue they need more time for more discovery because, they say, they “have identified the presence of ” special warranty coverage No. N182202780. (Serrano decl. at 2: 1 7—18.) This delay tactic is 10 no barrier to summary judgment. 11 The special warranty coverage cited by Plaintiffs was not a term of their purchase of 12 the Tahoe from Rock Honda as a used vehicle. (See GM’s Exhibit A [sale contract].) GM 13 was not a party to that transaction. Instead, by its terms, GM independently issued the 14 special coverage for the vehicle, regardless of who owned it, for the reasons described—and 15 for a period (10 years or 150,000 miles) calculated from the original sale of the Tahoe. 16 (Serrano decl., Ex. A [“General Motors is providing you with the additional special 17 coverage outlined in this letter. . . "; “within 10 years of the date your vehicle was originally 18 placed in service or 150,000 miles (240,000 km), whichever occurs f'1rst”]; accord GM’s 19 Exhibit D, “View Vehicle Summary” [to 11/04/2026 or 150,009 miles].) 20 Plaintiffs still fall squarely within the ambit of vehicle owners who have no claim 21 under Song—Beverly—i.e., vehicle owners who purchased a “previously sold car[] 22 accompanied by some balance of the original warranty.” (Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 23 77 Cal.App.5th 209, 225, review granted (July l3, 2022, 8274625).) The subsequent 24 issuance of the special coverage did nothing to transform Plaintiffs’ used vehicle purchase 25 into the purchase of a new vehicle “with a new or full express warranty,” which is required 26 27 28 2 GM’s reply in support of its motion for summary judgment etc.