Preview
ORIGINAL
KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP
—
Steve Mikhov (SBN 224676)
Russell Higgins (SBN 226124)
NO
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
WY
Tel.: (310) 552-2250 Superior Court of
County of Pigawfornia
BR
Fax: (310) 552-7973
E-mail: russellh@knightlaw.com
DEC 26 2018
~A
HDB
HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C. dake Chatters
? tive Officer
Sepehr Daghighian, (SBN 239349) By: & Ci
O. Lucatuorto,
NY
Daruty
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Aa
Telephone: (310) 887-1333
oO
Facsimile: (310) 887-1334
E-mail: sd@hdmnlaw.com
OS
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
KF
ANNA P. KING
RR
NY
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
WO
COUNTY OF PLACER
Ad
FSF
ANNA P. KING, Case No.: SCV 0038637
Unlimited Jurisdiction
XVd
ADA
rm
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF
DB
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
ANY
vs.
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S
Rr
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
DB
ADJUDICATION
em
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a
CO
California Corporation, and DOES 1 [Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Disputed
through 10, inclusive, and Undisputed Facts; Declaration of
CO
DN
Russell Higgins; Appendix of Documentary
Evidence; Opposition to Request for
KH
DN
Defendants. Judicial Notice; and Objections to
Defendant’s Evidence Filed Concurrently]
NYO
NN
WY
Hearing Date: January 8,2019
HN
Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.
FR
HN
Judge: Hon. Michael A. Jacques
OH
Dept.: 40
NY
HO
BH
Complaint Filed: October 28, 2016
NY
Trial Date: February 4, 2019
wBO
Co
NO
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NO
I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 0... ccccccccsscssessscecssenscecssseseceneeeeecueecsteesaecsssesescessesuscessnatenseas
1
WY
Tl. STATEMENT OF FACTS uu... cccccccccsscssessscecsecssseceasssesesssecacessecesnecesucsucscacecsseeenseeaseneensas
1
FF
I; LEGAL STANDARD yo cccasssccaxcanernecassamsnmennennessnainseasiraeenanamnncss:sndinewsanntsaicdieneusaneikssuntnausanesiansas
2
WwW
DBD
DAG SS Ea acti we ane i nn eps re nT nasa 4
NY
A. HYUNDAI DOES NOT DISPUTE ANY ELEMENTS OF SECTION 1793.2(D)(2). ......sseecsesseseeeeees
4
Oo
B. HYUNDAI DOES NOT DISPUTE ANY ELEMENTS OF MERCHANTABILITY. .....cccscssessseseseseeees
5
Oo
1. Hyundai Has Not Proved Plaintiffs Claim Under the Implied Warranty of
CO
Merchantability Categorically Accrued Over 4 Years Before Suit. 0... ccc eeeseeeeeseeeeeteeee
6
ee
KK
a. The Song-Beverly Act’s Implied Warranty of Merchantability
me
NPY
Extends to Future Performance......ccccsccsesssecscecsssseseeescececesessesecsecsessesessessceenesessaveregessenerseesss
6
WO
b. Hyundai’s Cited Case Law Is Inapposite. 0.0.0... eeeceessesecesseesscesceeecsesseeeesseeeasesssseseeess
8
BP
c. Hyundai’s Claimed “Legislative Intent” Is Not Cognizable........ ccc cccccseeeesseeeesesesesees
10
vA
2. Triable Issues Exist as to When Plaintiff's
Implied Warranty Claim Accrued. ............
TZ
DB
NY
¥_ CONCLUSION .cssnascs,...nccsunmnnnamamnnomaamnmmnm RON 14
mR
DO
UO
CO
RO
HO
KY§
NY
HN
WO
HN
BP
WH
A
NH
DH
DN
nN
po
oOo
NY
ii
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
CASES
HNO
Aguilar v.Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826 ....c.cccccccccccscsescessesceecescecsetseveccacesesearsees
4,5
Alford v.Pierno, 27 Cal. App.3d 682 .....cccccccccsssssssescseseesecceesscscscsascaesacsesevacserensasacsesaevarecasseacaraves
11
W
BP
American Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1995) 37 Cal. App.4th 1291 wo.ceccsccssssesssessssessseseees
5
HD
Bahl v. Bank of America (2001) 89 Cal. App.4th 389 .....ccccccsscssesssssccsesscesscesescsusssssesscesserseasacssesees
3
Booth v. Robinson (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 371 o....cccccscssecsscessessecesescescssscssssscesssseseseessesacessssescees
11
ND
Brand v. Hyundai Motor America (2014) 226 Cal. App.4th 1538 ......cccccccccessescsssssssessescescseesssesevee
5
Oo
Brantley v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal. App.4th 1591] wcccccscssscssssssscssescsescscsecsessscsessesseeeceestersesceces
3
oOo
Browne v. Turner Constr. Co. (2005) 127 Cal. App.4th 1334 o.o.ccccccscsscsecssesessesesssecaceeeseeseesees
2,3
Cardinal Health v. Tyco Electronics Corporation (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 116 ...............
9, 10, 11
CO
KH
Carriah v. Fritch C1950) 36 Cal2d 426 sacsescessenncsnnanssnsawarmasncoanamaniniiconisnnssiilisiasnlinstieasnatawebacattiesisk
13
PO
me
City of San Diego v. U.S. Gypsum Co. (1994) 30 Cal. App.4th 575 w..ccccccesssseseseseereseecseteeseeenesees
3
WH
Clark vy.Baxter Healthcare Corp. (2000) 83 Cal. App.4th 1048.0... ccccscsesseesessseeeeseeeeeeeneneees
3, 6
wm
BP
Curle v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1057... ce cececesecesseeseceeeeseseeceeesseseceeersaesseeseeseeseeees
10
HH
Cummins, dne. v.siper.-CL (2005) 36 Gal AG 47S sescisszssessinsenssencsnsenenesuansetiorennveneisiitalicaweants
4,11
DH
Daniel y. Ford Motor Company (9th Cir. 2015) 806 F.3d 1217 ooo eececeneeseeteteceeenees 7, 8, 10
Durkee v.Ford Motor Co. (N.D. ‘Cal. 2014) 2014 WL 7336672. ssiscvssssccunsventavisianiestecsesrsesctovecuyeeee
9
NN
eR
CO
Ehrlich v.BMW of N. America, LLC (C.D. Cal. 2010) 902 F.Supp.2d 908 0.0...eecesssseeeeersenseees
9
OO
Fale v.Nissan.N. Amevica (C.D. Cal. 2013) 2013 WL SS 75065 sscsscsscesvascvsnvcusensasnsvsvaasnavensennes
9
DTD
HNO
Heavenly Valley v. El Dorado County Bd. of Equalization (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1323............
11
F|F§
Hoechst Celanese Corp. v.Franchise Tax Bd. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 508.00... ccecsssssseesssescsseeenesees
11
KN
Hogya v. Superior Court (1977) 73 Cal App.3 122 ssi csnssssavunsvnsnncvassesnsiaendaisitansasbWaawsansansaiviess
11
NY
YN
Ww
Huantv. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal Athy984. csssesscaxssenvssssorncesnsensvanvagesvnnsesunnesneovensersreeveeersnas
10
WN
FP
J.B. Painting & Waterproofing v. RGB Holdings, LLC (9th Cir. 2016) 650 Fed. Appx. 450.........9
HN
UH
NYO
Jolly vy.
LU Lilly & Ga, (1988) 44 Cal 30 1103 sia ssiisiincsenansnvniaisvinnsteeinacvaninuiceacnacnienaciateanes
6
HNO
Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Downey Distributor (1980) 109 Cal. App.3d 908.......ccseeeereeees 3
ND
NO
Kaufman & Broad Comm., Inc. v.Performance Plastering, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 26.....11
eo
NO
Krieger v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal. App.3d 205 .....scccsessseseseeeetseeeeeeenenes
3,42
Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174 11
....ccccseseseenenecnersneneenenenenees
ili
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Lantzy v. Centex Homes (2003) 31 Cal.4th 363.......ccccccceccssesccscesescesescecsersescseeesecseessesssssacsesansnsees
13
MacDonald v.Ford Motor Co. (N.D. Cal. 2014) 37 F.Supp.3d 1087........ccccccssscssescessseseesesestens
10
PO
Madrid v.Justice Court (1975) 52 Cal. App.3d 819 ..cccccccccccsscssesessecescescesssssssessnsessrsecesssesesseaeeess
11
WY
Marriage & Family Center v. Super. Ct. (1991) 228 Cal. App.3d 1647 .....cccccccccsssecesesscseeeeeerees
4
FR
In re Marriage of Cornejo (1996) 13 Cal.4th 381 vice eccessecsssccssesseessceseessesecsecsesesseeeseaecaseeeeeecees
9
HW
Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co. v. PPG Industries (8th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 873 ...ccccccceseeseeeeee
9,10
NN
Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Ine. (2009) 174 Cal. App Ath 1297 sssescsisvsssvccssissiessansavarcassveesvasas
passim
Mitchell v.Skyline Homes (E.D. Cal. 2010) 2010 WL 1791281 o.oo cesessenscensensseeeeeseeeaeeaeeenees
9
Oo
oOo
Mocek vy.
Alfa Leisure, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal. App.4th 402 wo. eccccesseceneeeeeseeeeeneeeseeeeeserseetenees
5
Motke v. Holy Spirtt Assn. (1988) 46 Cal3d 1092 sss crcssssnss
ciawsesinti
ansanverastessnssnsonxs
canviniseeventasteamesays
3
CS
ee
Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal 4th 985 ......cscsccsesessesecsesseneeserenscneraeees
8,11
KF
ee
Ovando v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 159 Cal. App.4th 42 ooo. eeseseeseetseseeeeeeesscsssseese 6
Rr
HY
People ex rel, Green v. Grewal 2015) 61 Cal Att S44 cerccsssrcenasmeremmerenncemr=ennr orem 11
WY
Rr
People ¥. Cook Q01S) 60 CalGth 922 ccccssscsivisssnsissncennisnmonsnnescrnneseneocusscaswaranedumvenmuersmiceanneunens
11
FPF
Re
People v. Knowles (1950) 35 Cal.2d 175...
ccecssssessescesssecssessessessessessessssesesessessesasaneerseseenenseeeeses
11
BR
nH
Pisano vy;American Leasing (1983) 146 Cal. App.30 194 scssasicssssesseessssannomvanavancesawnnveensancevenns
5,6
HD
eee
Quintano v.Mercury Casualty Co. (1995) 11 Cal.4th. 1049..........scorscemsesrenssresererornonesrnsenensesstoes
11
ON
Ray y.Silverado Constructors (2002) 98 Cal App 4th 1120 wsicesssssssvsnceserss
nnssnsaenenencansecsenctswonnnsnes
3
Fei
Roberts v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2013) 2013 WL 7753579 wees 10
OO
NOM
Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785.........+.4
ODO
Romano v.Rockwell Int’l,Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 479 wise 3,6
ccesesseeesesseseeseseseeneesenseeseenesneeesseas
NO
KF
Salinas v. Martin (2008) 166 Cal Appi4th 404 2,3
si cisisccsscsvcsancarswerswansarnaxeanncrssenseseesnnversennvermeasevecers
Ne
WN
Schreidel v.American Honda Motor Co. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1242 4
o...cccsccsceeeeeetecteneeeeeens
WY
NY
Seifi v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (N.D. Cal. 2013) 2013 WL 2285339... 9
eesesesssserereessesseseenenee
PF
NY
State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 40 Cal.3d. 5 sc. 11
OW
NO
Vu v.Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. Co. (2001) 26 Cal.4th cceessessseseressnenees
1142... 14
NAO
NY
aN
NYO
ao
Oo
iv
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
STATUTES
kK
Civil COGS © TOL ssswiscvesnnsansuncenamncaanenuaeanennsewermenaecamnemevanenareememuumennenneemnmieummneaNaaEenE
passim
HY
WY
Civil Code § 1792 woccceccccceccssesssscsesssseceecessesnecsesssaeeseceecerseescaeesseeeseneceseseeseecseseeessseeeeseaessasecseenseass
5
FP
CVT CONS SFG2 2 rceesese
ests xsaneasvansexweenscenicarsasm
exe seisessislanessameeartons/ dt
wanes het icieoetaiaai
sine 4
HW
Code Civ. Proc: § 43Te SUD, (6) ssssscsecanannscannmnnmeneneasemenaRNROEEEKENEE 3
DN
Code ‘Civ,Prog; § 437c, Subd. (11)... crrrercvenenccinennvenseeacsnnensitnnsssionmnwavennenncaseennntniasiedh
GGinaannivinat
ast4
YN
Code Civ. Proc. § 437¢, SUB. (P)(2) vice eecesetsecseeeseecesacssesessesensssesseessenerseasesseessssnseeceeseaneeeseereees
a
Oo
Kris de: § 23814 sissies wosi nats inn
ns At SR ci SSE OSEAN SRR 8
Oo
Comm, Code § 2315 ccvcsessoscececensenannnsmcencersrcureracoeennenregeenesseeryeenenreeenennanennenconnnnilth
ASIST EEE 9
Comm: Code § 2725 scisseveisoncrmennancmnamncesnarenaneeseremennemmniecesrnceenneersan ES passim
OC
he
YK
OTHER AUTHORITIES
ESO
NY
FOO
COAT 12391 ecpvcnveeresennonnzunennnainnbvsd
dieaaaina
saea NWR ueatNamenene Eos icasiameuTie
unteniuwananeeneesoaenssnctntedss
8
WY
GACT F201 recast TTR
ideoscmconsnmonsasasensasaviareneemmucnsecensesenureurerenessersteatte heASAT ITT4
F&F
Fe Fe
DH
YF |
WON
YF
Oo
FF
ODO
NO
KH
NY
NY
NY
WY
YN
BP
N
AN
NHB
KN
NY NY
on
No
Vv
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
NY
Hyundai does not seek summary judgment of Plaintiff's case as a whole, nor adjudication of
W
any portion related to express warranties, and fails to submit evidence or argument that Plaintiffs
FP
vehicle was ever actually “merchantable.” Thus, Hyundai does not dispute that Plaintiffs vehicle
vn
was substantively unmerchantable; that Hyundai failed to repair nonconformities impairing its use,
Hn
value, or safety; or that Hyundai failed to replace itor make restitution. All substantive elements of
wont
Plaintiff's case are undisputed with law or evidence, therefore no burden has shifted to Plaintiff to
oppose on any of those substantive issues. Hyundai’s Motion for Summary Adjudication (MSA)
oO
solely concerns the statute of limitations for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and
OS
more specifically, the accrual date.
KE
KF
Factually, the MSA is based on misstatements of evidence and failsto establish categorically,
EF
NY
beyond any triable issue, that Plaintiff could not have discovered the breach of implied warranty
Fe
WY
within four years prior to filing. Legally, the MSA relies almost entirely on authority interpreting
FP
FE
the UCC rather than the Song-Beverly Act. To the extent iturges a statutory re-construction,
DAHA
Fee
Hyundai’s argument is misplaced and most of its supplied exhibits are not cognizable “legislative
history.” To compound that failing, Hyundai also misquotes those exhibits.
KF
A
As a result, triable issues remain as to when Plaintiff discovered or must have discovered a
DH
KR
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. A consumer failing to discover a latent defect in
OBO
KH
a vehicle before the manufacturer itself discovered it,while the manufacturer’s repair agents also
TDP
NO
could not confirm it (based at least in part on the manufacturer’s failure to discover it),cannot be
KF
NY
construed as “categorically time barred.”
NY
NN
Il. STATEMENT OF FACTS
WO
NW
The subject of this case is a 2010 Hyundai Tucson, purchased by Anna King (“Plaintiff”) on
FB
NH
February 19, 2010 at Roseville Hyundai for $32,374.84. (Hyundai’s Statement of Undisputed
nN
NO
Material Fact [“UMF”] No. 1; Plaintiff's Response to UMF No. 1.) The Tucson was covered by
ADA
NH
Hyundai’s express warranties that extended prospectively for 5 years from the purchase date for
YN
pO
most components, and up to 10 years for drivetrain parts. (AMF No. 2.) By operation of law, the
oOo
Oo
-1-
PLAINTIFE’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Tucson was also covered by the Song-Beverly Act’s implied warranty of merchantability for one
year from the date of sale. (Civil Code § 1791.1, subd. (c).) |
NO
Plaintiff has no automotive or mechanical or legal training or experience. (AMF No. 1.) She
WY
experienced a variety of problems with the Tucson and brought it to Hyundai’s authorized repair
BP
facilities for diagnosis and repair on several occasions during its express warranty period. The
mH
primary problem was the intermittently malfunctioning display from the backup camera when
ND
operating in reverse (UMF Nos. 3-6), which Plaintiff mentioned to repair personnel “every single
time we took it in.” (Responses to UMF Nos. 3-6.) Repair technicians at Roseville Hyundai and
Oo
Folsom Lake Hyundai repeatedly failed to diagnose the problem and advised Plaintiff repeatedly
So
that no problem was found atall, or that itwas operating normally. (UMF Nos. 3-6 and Responses
ee
CO
to UMF Nos. 3-6, 13.) The problems also included intermittently malfunctioning audio system while
KF
eee
in reverse (UMF No. 3) which Hyundai itself advised to be a normal operating condition, and a
NY
defective stop lamp switch which was the subject of a nationwide recall in 2013-2014. (UMF No. 5;
ee
Ww
AMF Nos. 4-7)
BP
Re
On August 1, 2015, a Folsom Lake Hyundai repair agent advised Plaintiff that the reverse
Re
nH
camera malfunction was probably due to a malfunctioning inhibitor switch, which had never been
DH
Re
diagnosed in the previous four-plus years, and that the problem would not be covered by Hyundai’s
ITD
Re
warranty which had just expired. (UMF No. 5 and Response to UMF No. 5.) The backup camera
ODO
RR
problem continued after filing of the suit.(Response to UMF No. 10.)
OO
Hyundai’s operating manuals for the Tucson suggest a variety of potential causes for
CO
NO
electrical problems unrelated to defects, including without limitation operator error, failure to
F&
NH
properly clean the components, and water intrusion. (AMF Nos. 2-3.)
NHN
NY
Il. LEGAL STANDARD
WD
WH
A cause of action may be summarily adjudicated ifeither of the following exists: (1) one or
FF
NH
more of its elements cannot be established, or (2) a defendant establishes an affirmative defense to
OO
NY
that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (0); Browne v. Turner Constr. Co. (2005) 127
DO
NY
Cal.App.4th 1334, 1339-1340; Salinas v.Martin (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 404, 410-411.) Only when
wpo
oN
the defendant proves that the plaintiff cannot establish all elements of the cause of action does the
NO
9.
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
burden shift to the plaintiff to present evidence of a disputed material issue of fact. (Code Civ. Proc.
eS
§ 437c, subd. (p)(2); Browne, supra, at p. 1340.) A moving defendant bears the burden to establish
NYO
an affirmative defense on a motion for summary adjudication, and the burden of negating the
WY
applicability of the discovery rule for accrual of any action based on a breach of warranty of future
FF
performance. (Krieger v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 205, 216.) Resolution
HA
of a statute of limitations issue isnormally a triable question of fact, unless the uncontradicted facts
HD
are susceptible of only one legitimate inference. (Romano v.Rockwell Int’l, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th
IN
479; Clark v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1048; City of San Diego v. U.S.
Oo
Gypsum Co. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 575.)
Oo
Evidence supporting the motion must be competent and admissible at trial.
(Code Civ. Proc.
OC
§ 437c subd. (c);Aguilar v.Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854-855.) In determining
YS
he
whether a defendant met itsburden, the court may consider the evidence and reasonable inferences
ee
HBO
therefrom, but cannot grant the motion if contradictory inferences raise a triable issue of material
eee
HD
fact. (Code Civ. Proc. §437c¢ subd. (c); Ray v. Silverado Constr. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1120, at
BP
Ree
1138-1139 [citing Aguilar].) The burden of persuasion remains upon the moving defendant at all
vA
times. (Browne, supra, at 1340; Salinas, supra, at410.)
DB
Because summary adjudication isa drastic measure that deprives the losing party of a trial
aD
on the merits, itmust be used with caution and stricttechnical Code compliance isrequired. (Molko
OH
ee
v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1107; Bahl v. Bank of America (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th
OD
389, 395.) “There is littleflexibility in the procedural imperatives of [section 437c], and the issues
CO
NO
raised by a motion for...summary adjudication[] are pure questions of law. As a result, section 437c
KF
HN
is unforgiving; a failure to comply with any one of itsmyriad requirements is likely to be fatalto the
NO
WN
offending party.” (Brantley v.Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1607.)
NN
If a single triable issue exists, the court must allow the issue to proceed to trial. (Joseph
Fe
YD
Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Downey Distributor (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 908, 914.) The court may not
UN
NN
determine the “true facts” of the case
Preview
ORIGINAL KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP — Steve Mikhov (SBN 224676) Russell Higgins (SBN 226124) NO 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 WY Tel.: (310) 552-2250 Superior Court of County of Pigawfornia BR Fax: (310) 552-7973 E-mail: russellh@knightlaw.com DEC 26 2018 ~A HDB HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C. dake Chatters ? tive Officer Sepehr Daghighian, (SBN 239349) By: & Ci O. Lucatuorto, NY Daruty 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Aa Telephone: (310) 887-1333 oO Facsimile: (310) 887-1334 E-mail: sd@hdmnlaw.com OS Attorneys for Plaintiff, KF ANNA P. KING RR NY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA WO COUNTY OF PLACER Ad FSF ANNA P. KING, Case No.: SCV 0038637 Unlimited Jurisdiction XVd ADA rm Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF DB POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ANY vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S Rr MOTION FOR SUMMARY DB ADJUDICATION em HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a CO California Corporation, and DOES 1 [Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Disputed through 10, inclusive, and Undisputed Facts; Declaration of CO DN Russell Higgins; Appendix of Documentary Evidence; Opposition to Request for KH DN Defendants. Judicial Notice; and Objections to Defendant’s Evidence Filed Concurrently] NYO NN WY Hearing Date: January 8,2019 HN Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. FR HN Judge: Hon. Michael A. Jacques OH Dept.: 40 NY HO BH Complaint Filed: October 28, 2016 NY Trial Date: February 4, 2019 wBO Co NO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS NO I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 0... ccccccccsscssessscecssenscecssseseceneeeeecueecsteesaecsssesescessesuscessnatenseas 1 WY Tl. STATEMENT OF FACTS uu... cccccccccsscssessscecsecssseceasssesesssecacessecesnecesucsucscacecsseeenseeaseneensas 1 FF I; LEGAL STANDARD yo cccasssccaxcanernecassamsnmennennessnainseasiraeenanamnncss:sndinewsanntsaicdieneusaneikssuntnausanesiansas 2 WwW DBD DAG SS Ea acti we ane i nn eps re nT nasa 4 NY A. HYUNDAI DOES NOT DISPUTE ANY ELEMENTS OF SECTION 1793.2(D)(2). ......sseecsesseseeeeees 4 Oo B. HYUNDAI DOES NOT DISPUTE ANY ELEMENTS OF MERCHANTABILITY. .....cccscssessseseseseeees 5 Oo 1. Hyundai Has Not Proved Plaintiffs Claim Under the Implied Warranty of CO Merchantability Categorically Accrued Over 4 Years Before Suit. 0... ccc eeeseeeeeseeeeeteeee 6 ee KK a. The Song-Beverly Act’s Implied Warranty of Merchantability me NPY Extends to Future Performance......ccccsccsesssecscecsssseseeescececesessesecsecsessesessessceenesessaveregessenerseesss 6 WO b. Hyundai’s Cited Case Law Is Inapposite. 0.0.0... eeeceessesecesseesscesceeecsesseeeesseeeasesssseseeess 8 BP c. Hyundai’s Claimed “Legislative Intent” Is Not Cognizable........ ccc cccccseeeesseeeesesesesees 10 vA 2. Triable Issues Exist as to When Plaintiff's Implied Warranty Claim Accrued. ............ TZ DB NY ¥_ CONCLUSION .cssnascs,...nccsunmnnnamamnnomaamnmmnm RON 14 mR DO UO CO RO HO KY§ NY HN WO HN BP WH A NH DH DN nN po oOo NY ii PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION CASES HNO Aguilar v.Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826 ....c.cccccccccccscsescessesceecescecsetseveccacesesearsees 4,5 Alford v.Pierno, 27 Cal. App.3d 682 .....cccccccccsssssssescseseesecceesscscscsascaesacsesevacserensasacsesaevarecasseacaraves 11 W BP American Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1995) 37 Cal. App.4th 1291 wo.ceccsccssssesssessssessseseees 5 HD Bahl v. Bank of America (2001) 89 Cal. App.4th 389 .....ccccccsscssesssssccsesscesscesescsusssssesscesserseasacssesees 3 Booth v. Robinson (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 371 o....cccccscssecsscessessecesescescssscssssscesssseseseessesacessssescees 11 ND Brand v. Hyundai Motor America (2014) 226 Cal. App.4th 1538 ......cccccccccessescsssssssessescescseesssesevee 5 Oo Brantley v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal. App.4th 1591] wcccccscssscssssssscssescsescscsecsessscsessesseeeceestersesceces 3 oOo Browne v. Turner Constr. Co. (2005) 127 Cal. App.4th 1334 o.o.ccccccscsscsecssesessesesssecaceeeseeseesees 2,3 Cardinal Health v. Tyco Electronics Corporation (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 116 ............... 9, 10, 11 CO KH Carriah v. Fritch C1950) 36 Cal2d 426 sacsescessenncsnnanssnsawarmasncoanamaniniiconisnnssiilisiasnlinstieasnatawebacattiesisk 13 PO me City of San Diego v. U.S. Gypsum Co. (1994) 30 Cal. App.4th 575 w..ccccccesssseseseseereseecseteeseeenesees 3 WH Clark vy.Baxter Healthcare Corp. (2000) 83 Cal. App.4th 1048.0... ccccscsesseesessseeeeseeeeeeeneneees 3, 6 wm BP Curle v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1057... ce cececesecesseeseceeeeseseeceeesseseceeersaesseeseeseeseeees 10 HH Cummins, dne. v.siper.-CL (2005) 36 Gal AG 47S sescisszssessinsenssencsnsenenesuansetiorennveneisiitalicaweants 4,11 DH Daniel y. Ford Motor Company (9th Cir. 2015) 806 F.3d 1217 ooo eececeneeseeteteceeenees 7, 8, 10 Durkee v.Ford Motor Co. (N.D. ‘Cal. 2014) 2014 WL 7336672. ssiscvssssccunsventavisianiestecsesrsesctovecuyeeee 9 NN eR CO Ehrlich v.BMW of N. America, LLC (C.D. Cal. 2010) 902 F.Supp.2d 908 0.0...eecesssseeeeersenseees 9 OO Fale v.Nissan.N. Amevica (C.D. Cal. 2013) 2013 WL SS 75065 sscsscsscesvascvsnvcusensasnsvsvaasnavensennes 9 DTD HNO Heavenly Valley v. El Dorado County Bd. of Equalization (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1323............ 11 F|F§ Hoechst Celanese Corp. v.Franchise Tax Bd. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 508.00... ccecsssssseesssescsseeenesees 11 KN Hogya v. Superior Court (1977) 73 Cal App.3 122 ssi csnssssavunsvnsnncvassesnsiaendaisitansasbWaawsansansaiviess 11 NY YN Ww Huantv. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal Athy984. csssesscaxssenvssssorncesnsensvanvagesvnnsesunnesneovensersreeveeersnas 10 WN FP J.B. Painting & Waterproofing v. RGB Holdings, LLC (9th Cir. 2016) 650 Fed. Appx. 450.........9 HN UH NYO Jolly vy. LU Lilly & Ga, (1988) 44 Cal 30 1103 sia ssiisiincsenansnvniaisvinnsteeinacvaninuiceacnacnienaciateanes 6 HNO Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Downey Distributor (1980) 109 Cal. App.3d 908.......ccseeeereeees 3 ND NO Kaufman & Broad Comm., Inc. v.Performance Plastering, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 26.....11 eo NO Krieger v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal. App.3d 205 .....scccsessseseseeeetseeeeeeenenes 3,42 Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174 11 ....ccccseseseenenecnersneneenenenenees ili PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Lantzy v. Centex Homes (2003) 31 Cal.4th 363.......ccccccceccssesccscesescesescecsersescseeesecseessesssssacsesansnsees 13 MacDonald v.Ford Motor Co. (N.D. Cal. 2014) 37 F.Supp.3d 1087........ccccccssscssescessseseesesestens 10 PO Madrid v.Justice Court (1975) 52 Cal. App.3d 819 ..cccccccccccsscssesessecescescesssssssessnsessrsecesssesesseaeeess 11 WY Marriage & Family Center v. Super. Ct. (1991) 228 Cal. App.3d 1647 .....cccccccccsssecesesscseeeeeerees 4 FR In re Marriage of Cornejo (1996) 13 Cal.4th 381 vice eccessecsssccssesseessceseessesecsecsesesseeeseaecaseeeeeecees 9 HW Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co. v. PPG Industries (8th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 873 ...ccccccceseeseeeeee 9,10 NN Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Ine. (2009) 174 Cal. App Ath 1297 sssescsisvsssvccssissiessansavarcassveesvasas passim Mitchell v.Skyline Homes (E.D. Cal. 2010) 2010 WL 1791281 o.oo cesessenscensensseeeeeseeeaeeaeeenees 9 Oo oOo Mocek vy. Alfa Leisure, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal. App.4th 402 wo. eccccesseceneeeeeseeeeeneeeseeeeeserseetenees 5 Motke v. Holy Spirtt Assn. (1988) 46 Cal3d 1092 sss crcssssnss ciawsesinti ansanverastessnssnsonxs canviniseeventasteamesays 3 CS ee Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal 4th 985 ......cscsccsesessesecsesseneeserenscneraeees 8,11 KF ee Ovando v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 159 Cal. App.4th 42 ooo. eeseseeseetseseeeeeeesscsssseese 6 Rr HY People ex rel, Green v. Grewal 2015) 61 Cal Att S44 cerccsssrcenasmeremmerenncemr=ennr orem 11 WY Rr People ¥. Cook Q01S) 60 CalGth 922 ccccssscsivisssnsissncennisnmonsnnescrnneseneocusscaswaranedumvenmuersmiceanneunens 11 FPF Re People v. Knowles (1950) 35 Cal.2d 175... ccecssssessescesssecssessessessessessessssesesessessesasaneerseseenenseeeeses 11 BR nH Pisano vy;American Leasing (1983) 146 Cal. App.30 194 scssasicssssesseessssannomvanavancesawnnveensancevenns 5,6 HD eee Quintano v.Mercury Casualty Co. (1995) 11 Cal.4th. 1049..........scorscemsesrenssresererornonesrnsenensesstoes 11 ON Ray y.Silverado Constructors (2002) 98 Cal App 4th 1120 wsicesssssssvsnceserss nnssnsaenenencansecsenctswonnnsnes 3 Fei Roberts v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2013) 2013 WL 7753579 wees 10 OO NOM Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785.........+.4 ODO Romano v.Rockwell Int’l,Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 479 wise 3,6 ccesesseeesesseseeseseseeneesenseeseenesneeesseas NO KF Salinas v. Martin (2008) 166 Cal Appi4th 404 2,3 si cisisccsscsvcsancarswerswansarnaxeanncrssenseseesnnversennvermeasevecers Ne WN Schreidel v.American Honda Motor Co. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1242 4 o...cccsccsceeeeeetecteneeeeeens WY NY Seifi v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (N.D. Cal. 2013) 2013 WL 2285339... 9 eesesesssserereessesseseenenee PF NY State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 40 Cal.3d. 5 sc. 11 OW NO Vu v.Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. Co. (2001) 26 Cal.4th cceessessseseressnenees 1142... 14 NAO NY aN NYO ao Oo iv PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION STATUTES kK Civil COGS © TOL ssswiscvesnnsansuncenamncaanenuaeanennsewermenaecamnemevanenareememuumennenneemnmieummneaNaaEenE passim HY WY Civil Code § 1792 woccceccccceccssesssscsesssseceecessesnecsesssaeeseceecerseescaeesseeeseneceseseeseecseseeessseeeeseaessasecseenseass 5 FP CVT CONS SFG2 2 rceesese ests xsaneasvansexweenscenicarsasm exe seisessislanessameeartons/ dt wanes het icieoetaiaai sine 4 HW Code Civ. Proc: § 43Te SUD, (6) ssssscsecanannscannmnnmeneneasemenaRNROEEEKENEE 3 DN Code ‘Civ,Prog; § 437c, Subd. (11)... crrrercvenenccinennvenseeacsnnensitnnsssionmnwavennenncaseennntniasiedh GGinaannivinat ast4 YN Code Civ. Proc. § 437¢, SUB. (P)(2) vice eecesetsecseeeseecesacssesessesensssesseessenerseasesseessssnseeceeseaneeeseereees a Oo Kris de: § 23814 sissies wosi nats inn ns At SR ci SSE OSEAN SRR 8 Oo Comm, Code § 2315 ccvcsessoscececensenannnsmcencersrcureracoeennenregeenesseeryeenenreeenennanennenconnnnilth ASIST EEE 9 Comm: Code § 2725 scisseveisoncrmennancmnamncesnarenaneeseremennemmniecesrnceenneersan ES passim OC he YK OTHER AUTHORITIES ESO NY FOO COAT 12391 ecpvcnveeresennonnzunennnainnbvsd dieaaaina saea NWR ueatNamenene Eos icasiameuTie unteniuwananeeneesoaenssnctntedss 8 WY GACT F201 recast TTR ideoscmconsnmonsasasensasaviareneemmucnsecensesenureurerenessersteatte heASAT ITT4 F&F Fe Fe DH YF | WON YF Oo FF ODO NO KH NY NY NY WY YN BP N AN NHB KN NY NY on No Vv PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT NY Hyundai does not seek summary judgment of Plaintiff's case as a whole, nor adjudication of W any portion related to express warranties, and fails to submit evidence or argument that Plaintiffs FP vehicle was ever actually “merchantable.” Thus, Hyundai does not dispute that Plaintiffs vehicle vn was substantively unmerchantable; that Hyundai failed to repair nonconformities impairing its use, Hn value, or safety; or that Hyundai failed to replace itor make restitution. All substantive elements of wont Plaintiff's case are undisputed with law or evidence, therefore no burden has shifted to Plaintiff to oppose on any of those substantive issues. Hyundai’s Motion for Summary Adjudication (MSA) oO solely concerns the statute of limitations for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and OS more specifically, the accrual date. KE KF Factually, the MSA is based on misstatements of evidence and failsto establish categorically, EF NY beyond any triable issue, that Plaintiff could not have discovered the breach of implied warranty Fe WY within four years prior to filing. Legally, the MSA relies almost entirely on authority interpreting FP FE the UCC rather than the Song-Beverly Act. To the extent iturges a statutory re-construction, DAHA Fee Hyundai’s argument is misplaced and most of its supplied exhibits are not cognizable “legislative history.” To compound that failing, Hyundai also misquotes those exhibits. KF A As a result, triable issues remain as to when Plaintiff discovered or must have discovered a DH KR breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. A consumer failing to discover a latent defect in OBO KH a vehicle before the manufacturer itself discovered it,while the manufacturer’s repair agents also TDP NO could not confirm it (based at least in part on the manufacturer’s failure to discover it),cannot be KF NY construed as “categorically time barred.” NY NN Il. STATEMENT OF FACTS WO NW The subject of this case is a 2010 Hyundai Tucson, purchased by Anna King (“Plaintiff”) on FB NH February 19, 2010 at Roseville Hyundai for $32,374.84. (Hyundai’s Statement of Undisputed nN NO Material Fact [“UMF”] No. 1; Plaintiff's Response to UMF No. 1.) The Tucson was covered by ADA NH Hyundai’s express warranties that extended prospectively for 5 years from the purchase date for YN pO most components, and up to 10 years for drivetrain parts. (AMF No. 2.) By operation of law, the oOo Oo -1- PLAINTIFE’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Tucson was also covered by the Song-Beverly Act’s implied warranty of merchantability for one year from the date of sale. (Civil Code § 1791.1, subd. (c).) | NO Plaintiff has no automotive or mechanical or legal training or experience. (AMF No. 1.) She WY experienced a variety of problems with the Tucson and brought it to Hyundai’s authorized repair BP facilities for diagnosis and repair on several occasions during its express warranty period. The mH primary problem was the intermittently malfunctioning display from the backup camera when ND operating in reverse (UMF Nos. 3-6), which Plaintiff mentioned to repair personnel “every single time we took it in.” (Responses to UMF Nos. 3-6.) Repair technicians at Roseville Hyundai and Oo Folsom Lake Hyundai repeatedly failed to diagnose the problem and advised Plaintiff repeatedly So that no problem was found atall, or that itwas operating normally. (UMF Nos. 3-6 and Responses ee CO to UMF Nos. 3-6, 13.) The problems also included intermittently malfunctioning audio system while KF eee in reverse (UMF No. 3) which Hyundai itself advised to be a normal operating condition, and a NY defective stop lamp switch which was the subject of a nationwide recall in 2013-2014. (UMF No. 5; ee Ww AMF Nos. 4-7) BP Re On August 1, 2015, a Folsom Lake Hyundai repair agent advised Plaintiff that the reverse Re nH camera malfunction was probably due to a malfunctioning inhibitor switch, which had never been DH Re diagnosed in the previous four-plus years, and that the problem would not be covered by Hyundai’s ITD Re warranty which had just expired. (UMF No. 5 and Response to UMF No. 5.) The backup camera ODO RR problem continued after filing of the suit.(Response to UMF No. 10.) OO Hyundai’s operating manuals for the Tucson suggest a variety of potential causes for CO NO electrical problems unrelated to defects, including without limitation operator error, failure to F& NH properly clean the components, and water intrusion. (AMF Nos. 2-3.) NHN NY Il. LEGAL STANDARD WD WH A cause of action may be summarily adjudicated ifeither of the following exists: (1) one or FF NH more of its elements cannot be established, or (2) a defendant establishes an affirmative defense to OO NY that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (0); Browne v. Turner Constr. Co. (2005) 127 DO NY Cal.App.4th 1334, 1339-1340; Salinas v.Martin (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 404, 410-411.) Only when wpo oN the defendant proves that the plaintiff cannot establish all elements of the cause of action does the NO 9. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION burden shift to the plaintiff to present evidence of a disputed material issue of fact. (Code Civ. Proc. eS § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Browne, supra, at p. 1340.) A moving defendant bears the burden to establish NYO an affirmative defense on a motion for summary adjudication, and the burden of negating the WY applicability of the discovery rule for accrual of any action based on a breach of warranty of future FF performance. (Krieger v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 205, 216.) Resolution HA of a statute of limitations issue isnormally a triable question of fact, unless the uncontradicted facts HD are susceptible of only one legitimate inference. (Romano v.Rockwell Int’l, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th IN 479; Clark v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1048; City of San Diego v. U.S. Oo Gypsum Co. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 575.) Oo Evidence supporting the motion must be competent and admissible at trial. (Code Civ. Proc. OC § 437c subd. (c);Aguilar v.Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854-855.) In determining YS he whether a defendant met itsburden, the court may consider the evidence and reasonable inferences ee HBO therefrom, but cannot grant the motion if contradictory inferences raise a triable issue of material eee HD fact. (Code Civ. Proc. §437c¢ subd. (c); Ray v. Silverado Constr. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1120, at BP Ree 1138-1139 [citing Aguilar].) The burden of persuasion remains upon the moving defendant at all vA times. (Browne, supra, at 1340; Salinas, supra, at410.) DB Because summary adjudication isa drastic measure that deprives the losing party of a trial aD on the merits, itmust be used with caution and stricttechnical Code compliance isrequired. (Molko OH ee v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1107; Bahl v. Bank of America (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th OD 389, 395.) “There is littleflexibility in the procedural imperatives of [section 437c], and the issues CO NO raised by a motion for...summary adjudication[] are pure questions of law. As a result, section 437c KF HN is unforgiving; a failure to comply with any one of itsmyriad requirements is likely to be fatalto the NO WN offending party.” (Brantley v.Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1607.) NN If a single triable issue exists, the court must allow the issue to proceed to trial. (Joseph Fe YD Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Downey Distributor (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 908, 914.) The court may not UN NN determine the “true facts” of the case