ase Number: 13K17005    Hearing Date: January 05, 2015    Dept: 77

Defendant Ford Motor Company brings this Motion for Summary Judgment. CCP § 437c.

Plaintiff filed this action for violation of the Consumers Remedies Act. The Court reclassified Plaintiff action as a limited civil matter. As of December 23, 2014, no opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed by Plaintiff.

In order to state a claim under CLRA it must be alleged that Plaintiff is a Consumer; who suffered damage; as a result of the use or employment by any person of a method, act, or practice declared to be unlawful by Civil Code Section 1770. See CC §1780(a); Buckland v. Threshold Ent., Ltd. (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4th 798, 809, 811 (“actual reliance is an element of a CLRA claim sounding in fraud.”), disapproved on other grounds by Kwikset Corp. v. Sup.Ct. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 337; Morgan v. AT & T Wireless Services, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1235, 1259 (under CLRA one may obtain actual and punitive damages, or injunctive relief); Wilens v. TD Waterhouse Group, Inc. (2003) 120 Cal. App. 4th 746, 754. See also Daugherty v. Amer. Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 824, 833 (acts unlawful under the CLRA include misrepresenting that goods have characteristics (CC § 1770(a)(5)) and misrepresenting that goods are of a standard, quality, or grade (CC § 1770(a)(7)); Bardin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2006) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1255, 1276 (complaint failed to allege an affirmative representation or a duty to disclose); Consumer Advocates v. Echostar Satellite Corp. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1362 (to be actionable under the CLRA, representations must be likely to deceive a reasonable consumer, and not akin to puffing).

In this case, the moving party has produced sufficient evidentiary facts that entitle it to Summary Adjudication as a matter of law. Specifically, looking at the separate statement, MF Nos. 1-6, and the declaration of Michael McGee, sufficient evidence has been produced to show that defendant is entitled to Summary Judgment.

Here, defendant has discharged its initial movant’s burden. Therefore, the burden to respond has shifted to plaintiff. “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850-851.

In this case, defendant has produced sufficient evidence that shows that plaintiff cannot prevail on her claim as defendant was not present when plaintiff purchased the vehicle and service contract, was never contacted at the time plaintiff purchased the service contract and all communications regarding the purchase of the vehicle and the contract were with the Ford dealership that sold the vehicle, not defendant. MF Nos. 1-6. Here, defendant has made a compelling argument that there is no triable issue of material fact in this case.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion. As such, there is no triable issue of fact that plaintiff cannot establish the essential elements of her cause of action against defendant.

Accordingly, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS PROPER AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION IS GRANTED. CCP § 437c.

The Order of Judgment signed this date.

Moving party to give notice.