Related Attorneys
Horvitz & Levy obtained a unanimous decision for automotive manufacturer Ford Motor Company affirming the trial court’s grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the plaintiffs’ claims for breach of express and implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act. In part, the Court of Appeal relied on the California’s Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rodriguez v. FCA (also handled by Horvitz & Levy), which held that a used vehicle sold with a balance remaining on the manufacturer’s “new car warranty” is not a “new motor vehicle” subject to the Act’s enhanced statutory refund-or-replace remedy for new car buyers. The Court of Appeal also relied on the statutory construction and legislative history presented by Horvitz & Levy to further hold that such used vehicles are not “consumer goods” subject to the Act’s implied warranty protections.
Plaintiffs purchased a two-year-old Ford Explorer from a used car dealership. After seeking repairs under the original warranty that carried over from the used vehicle’s original sale, plaintiffs sued the dealer and the manufacturer, Ford, asserting claims under the Song-Beverly Act seeking the vehicle’s repurchase or replacement and damages for breach of implied warranties. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for Ford on the ground that the SUV was not a “new motor vehicle” under the Act, and therefore did not qualify for the Act’s special refund or replacement remedies or implied warranty protections. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the phrase “other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty” in the Act’s definition of “new motor vehicle” includes previously owned vehicles with some balance remaining under the manufacturer’s express warranty. Plaintiffs also argued that the trial court erred when it dismissed plaintiffs’ implied warranty claim based on the conclusion that plaintiffs’ SUV was not a “new motor vehicle,” a term that is not used in the Act’s implied warranty provisions. Ford retained Horvitz & Levy to prepare appellate briefing and present oral argument.
Horvitz & Levy prepared the appellate briefing in the Court of Appeal, including extensive motions for judicial notice relating to the Act’s legislative history. Before the California Supreme Court decided Rodriguez v. FCA, the Court of Appeal issued a tentative opinion affirming the trial court’s decision. After Rodriguez was filed, the Court of Appeal revised its tentative opinion to include analysis of Rodriguez. The Court of Appeal also agreed with Horvitz & Levy’s argument that a vehicle that is not a “new motor vehicle” under the Act is also not a “consumer good” under the Act and thus, plaintiffs’ previously-sold used car was not subject to the Act’s implied warranty protections for new products.
