2015-00178728-CU-BC

Connie Marie Romero vs. Hyundai Motor America

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Summary Judgment

Filed By: Takahashi, Brian

Defendant Hyundai Motor America’s (HMA) motion for summary judgment or, in the
alternative, summary adjudication of issues is DENIED.

Overview

This case involves allegations HMA failed to repair warrantied components in an
automobile that a third-party dealer sold to Plaintiff Connie M. Romero (Romero).
Romero’s complaint contains causes of action for violation of California’s Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly) and for violation of the federal Magnuson-
Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act (Mag-Moss). Song-
Beverly requires covered manufacturers and distributors to repair or, failing that, to
replace consumer goods or make restitution for them. Mag-Moss provides a federal
cause of action for violations of consumer warranties under state law. HMA now
moves for summary adjudication of each cause of action and, therefore, for summary
judgment. Romero opposes.

Discussion

The motion is denied because HMA has not produced admissible evidence
demonstrating the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact.

Key to HMA’s motion are its assertions that (1) Romero only presented the vehicle for
repair on two occasions, (2) each time Romero sought repair she did so based on
defects that had not appeared before and did not reappear, and (3) each time Romero
sought repair a full repair of the subject defect(s) was made. (See Undisputed Material
Facts (UMF) 9-12.) Based on these assertions, HMA argues that Romero cannot
establish any failure to repair, which is essential to each of her causes of action.

To substantiate the three assertions above, HMA has produced two repair orders, one
purportedly corresponding to each repair sought. Each repair order describes the
nature of the defect(s) presented, sets forth diagnostic “trouble codes” that appeared
when testing was performed, describes the repairs made, and indicates that, after
repairs were performed, the problems disappeared. The repair orders are the only
evidence submitted to establish UMF 10 and 12. They are also the only evidence
submitted to establish portions of UMF 9 and 11.

Romero objects to the repair orders as hearsay, and that objection is sustained. (See
Romero’s Obj. No. 7.) HMA has adduced the repair orders for their truth. Because the
repair orders contain out-of-court statements offered for their truth, they contain
hearsay that is not admissible absent an applicable exception to the hearsay rule.
Notably, there is no declaration from HMA establishing that the statements fall within
the business records exception. Instead, HMA’s counsel has merely purported to
authenticate the repair orders as “true and correct copies” of the originals. (See Park
Decl., p. 1.) Setting aside any lack of foundation for such authentication, even if the
copies submitted with the motion are accurate, the statements within them remain
inadmissible hearsay.

Because HMA has not produced admissible evidence of multiple facts it has tendered
as material to the motion, it has failed to meet its initial burden of production, the
burden never shifted to Romero, and the motion must be denied.

The court does not address the parties’ other arguments in support of or in opposition
to the motion.

With specific reference to HMA’s position that Romero spoliated evidence and should
be sanctioned appropriately, the court declines to address that issue in connection with
the instant motion for summary judgment. HMA has failed to meet its initial burden on
summary judgment for reasons unrelated to any spoliation of evidence. The spoliation
issue, therefore, does not affect the outcome of the current motion. Nothing in the
instant ruling, however, is intended to bar HMA from raising the spoliation issue
elsewhere.

Pursuant to CCP § 437c(q), the court declines to rule on evidentiary objections other
than the hearsay objection sustained above.

Disposition

The motion is denied.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC 3.1312 or
further notice is required.