On 01/22/2020 JUAN HERNANDEZ filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against HOLLYWOOD RIDES INC AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20 INCLUSIVE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
*******0672
01/22/2020
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
SERENA R. MURILLO
HERNANDEZ JUAN
HOLLYWOOD RIDES INC.
SIMONS STEVEN AMES
KOUPRINE PAVEL
9/22/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
9/29/2020: Objection (name extension) - Objection Hernandez- Executed Plf. Objections to Def. Request for Judicial Notice 092920
9/29/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Hernandez- Executed Plf.'s Opposition to Def. Demurrer to Complaint 092920
9/29/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice
10/6/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
10/13/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)
9/15/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 09/15/2020
9/15/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)
4/9/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service
4/15/2020: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike
4/15/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice
4/29/2020: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment
1/22/2020: Complaint - Complaint
1/22/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
1/22/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
1/22/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint
1/22/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
1/22/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
Hearing01/25/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service
Hearing07/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial
DocketUpdated -- Demurrer - without Motion to Strike: Filed By: Hollywood Rides Inc. (Defendant); Result: Sustained with Leave to Amend; Result Date: 10/13/2020
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)
DocketHearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 10/13/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 10/13/2020; Result Type to Held
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: Hollywood Rides Inc. (Defendant); As to: Juan Hernandez (Plaintiff)
DocketReply In support of Defendants' Demurrer to the Complaint; Filed by: Hollywood Rides Inc. (Defendant)
DocketOpposition Hernandez- Executed Plf.'s Opposition to Def. Demurrer to Complaint 092920; Filed by: Juan Hernandez (Plaintiff)
DocketObjection Hernandez- Executed Plf. Objections to Def. Request for Judicial Notice 092920; Filed by: Juan Hernandez (Plaintiff)
DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by: Juan Hernandez (Plaintiff)
DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Juan Hernandez (Plaintiff); As to: Hollywood Rides Inc. (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 03/12/2020; Service Cost: 45.00; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/25/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Juan Hernandez (Plaintiff); As to: Hollywood Rides Inc. (Defendant)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Juan Hernandez (Plaintiff); As to: Hollywood Rides Inc. (Defendant)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Juan Hernandez (Plaintiff); As to: Hollywood Rides Inc. (Defendant)
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Juan Hernandez (Plaintiff); As to: Hollywood Rides Inc. (Defendant)
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
Case Number: 20STLC00672 Hearing Date: October 13, 2020 Dept: 26
Hernandez v. Hollywood Rides, Inc., et al DEMURRER (CCP §§ 430.31,
et seq.) TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Hollywood Rides, Inc.’s Demurrer to the Complaint
is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND. ANALYSIS: On January 22,
2020, Plaintiff Juan Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against
Defendant Hollywood Rides, Inc. (“Defendants”) for (1)
Breach of Implied Warranty of Title in Violation Of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
15 U.S.C. § 2301; and (2) Violation of Vehicle Code § 5753 Failure to Deliver
Certificate of Ownership. The Complaint pertains to the sale of a used 2015
Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (“the Vehicle”). (Compl., On April 15,
2020, Defendant filed the instant Demurrer to the Complaint. On September 29,
2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition and Defendant replied on October 5, 2020. Request for Judicial Notice The demurrer asks the Court to take judicial
notice of the following business records created by Defendant: (1) the Vehicle/Vessel
Transfer and Reassignment Form for the Vehicle; (2) an unnamed / unidentifiable
document; (3) a printout of the electronic application for transfer and release
of liability system; and (4) registration card of Hernandez Juan G for a 2015
Chevrolet Commercial. (Demurrer, RJN, pp. 1-2.) Other than broadly citing to
Cal. Evidence Code sections 451, 452 and 453, the Demurrer offers no
explanation why business records created by Defendant are matters of which the
Court may take judicial notice. Defendant’s request for judicial notice is
denied. The opposition
asks the Court to take judicial notice of Legislative History, Governor’s File,
Senate Bill No. 237, Chapter 151, which pertains to Cal. Vehicle Code section
5753. Pursuant to Cal. Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (a) and (c),
Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted. Discussion The Demurrer demonstrates compliance with the requirements of Code of
Civil Procedure section 430.41. The demurring party is required to meet and
confer in person or telephonically at least five days before the responsive
pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The Demurrer is
accompanied by a declaration demonstrating a prior meet and confer effort.
(Demurrer, Parshin Decl., ¶¶2-4.) The Court also addresses both parties’ contentions that notice of the
papers was not provided as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Insofar as
neither party has been prejudiced by any apparent improper notice, the Court
finds no reason to fail to address the substantive merits of the Demurrer. The Complaint alleges two causes of action: (1) Breach
of Implied Warranty of Title in Violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15
U.S.C. § 2301; and (2) Violation of Vehicle Code § 5753 Failure to Deliver
Certificate of Ownership. Defendant demurs to both causes of action for failure
to allege sufficient facts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) The Complaint alleges that on June 21, 2019, Plaintiff paid Defendant
$23,737.58 in exchange for the Vehicle, at which time Defendant represented
that it had full right and title to sell the Vehicle and transfer all rights and title to the Vehicle to Plaintiff upon full payment,
and that Defendant would pay all DMV registration, title and transfer fees to
the California Department of Motor Vehicles (“the DMV”). (Compl., ¶¶5-6 and
Exh. A.) Defendant allegedly misrepresented that it had had full right and
title to sell the Vehicle and transfer all rights and title to the Vehicle to
Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶7a.) Defendant also allegedly misrepresented that it
would pay all DMV registration, title and transfer fees to the DMV. (Id.
at ¶7b.) It is also alleged that Defendant failed to deliver the
Vehicle’s certificate of ownership and registration card to Plaintiff within
fifteen (15) days after receipt of full payment of the purchase price. (Id.
at ¶11.) In the first cause of action Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached
the implied warranty set forth in 15 U.S.C. section 2301 by failing to deliver
the certificate of ownership within 15 business days of Plaintiff’s entitlement
to receive title under California Vehicle Code section 5753. (Id. at
¶¶21-23.) As a result, Plaintiff alleges he is entitled to reimbursement of the
purchase money and to statutory penalties under Vehicle Code section 5753. The
second cause of action also alleges that Defendant violated Vehicle Code
section 5753 by failing to deliver the certificate of ownership and vehicle
registration within 15 days of receipt of full payment. (Compl., ¶32.) Plaintiff
again alleges he is entitled to statutory damages as a result. (Id. at
¶36.) The
gravamen of the Complaint, therefore, is Defendant’s alleged violation of
Vehicle Code section 5753 and Plaintiff’s entitlement to damages thereunder.
Vehicle Code section 5753 states in relevant part: (a) It is
unlawful for any person to fail or neglect properly to endorse, date, and
deliver the certificate of ownership and, when having possession, to deliver
the registration card to a transferee who is lawfully entitled to a transfer of
registration. (b) Except
when the certificate of ownership is demanded in writing by a purchaser, a
vehicle dealer licensed under this code shall satisfy the delivery requirement
of this section by submitting appropriate documents and fees to the department
for transfer of registration in accordance with Sections 5906 and 4456 of this
code and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. (c)(1) Within
15 business days after receiving payment in full for the satisfaction of a
security interest and a written instrument signed by the grantor of the
security interest designating the transferee and authorizing release of the
legal owner's interest, the legal owner shall release its security interest and
mail, transmit, or deliver the vehicle's certificate of ownership to the
transferee who, due to satisfaction of the security interest, is lawfully
entitled to the transfer of legal ownership. (Cal. Veh.
Code, § 5753, subds. (a), (b), (c).) Section 5753 makes it unlawful for a
dealer, such as Defendant, to fail to deliver the certificate of ownership and registration
card to a purchaser, like Plaintiff, who is lawfully entitled to a transfer of
registration. (Cal. Veh. Code, § 5753, subd. (a).) However, subdivision (b)
makes delivery of the registration card to the purchaser conditional upon
written demand. (Cal. Veh. Code, § 5753, subd. (b).) If no written demand is
made by the purchaser, the dealer must satisfy its obligation to deliver the
registration card by submitting the appropriate documents and fees to the DMV
for transfer of registration in accordance with sections 5906 and 4456 of the
Vehicle Code. Under subdivision (c)(1), the dealer must deliver the vehicle's
certificate of ownership to the transferee within 15 days. (Cal. Veh. Code, §
5753, subd. (c)(1).) The
Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff made written demand upon Defendant for
delivery of the registration card. Therefore, there is no allegation showing
that Defendant was obligated to deliver the certificate of ownership and
registration card to Plaintiff. Nor does the Complaint expressly allege that
Defendant failed to submit the appropriate documents to the DMV for transfer of
registration. So, there is no allegation that Defendant violated Cal. Vehicle
Code section 5753, subdivision (c)(1). Furthermore,
in order for Plaintiff to obtain statutory penalties under Cal. Vehicle Code
section 5753, subdivision (e), the Complaint must allege Defendant violated
both subdivisions (c) and (d). Without an allegation that Defendant violated
subdivision (c), Plaintiff also cannot allege that the certificate of ownership
delivered failed to accomplish release of the legal owner's interest pursuant
to subdivision (d). Based
on the foregoing, the demurrer to the Complaint is sustained with leave to
amend. The Court does not reach the specific issue of whether Plaintiff can
state a claim for breach of implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Act with
respect to the purchase of a motor vehicle, but points out that “[i]n
California, an implied warranty of merchantability arises under the
Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.” (Isip v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
(2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 19, 24.) Conclusion Defendant Hollywood Rides, Inc.’s Demurrer to the Complaint
is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND. Moving party to give notice.