Facts

In January 2021, Renee Lynn Grismore leased a used 2021 Mercedes-Benz GLA250W (Subject Vehicle) from non-party Mercedes-Benz of Ontario (MBO), an MBUSA-affiliated dealership. The Subject Vehicle was previously a service loaner or service vehicle of MBO, and its odometer showed 5,613 miles of use at the time that Grismore entered into the lease. Grismore signed an agreement stating that "[i]f the vehicle is pre-owned, it is not covered by a warranty unless indicated by a check in the corresponding block below" with none of the three boxes checked on the lease. In July 2021, Grismore presented the Subject Vehicle to MBO to address certain mechanical problems. MBO's inspection of the vehicle found leaks within the car's exhaust vales and fouled spark plugs. Additional issues involved its powertrain and

A/C system. Grismore presented the Subject Vehicle to MBO again in October 2021, for the same powertrain-related issues, but MBO's technician concluded that it was operating according to its warranty. In November 2021, Grismore filed her complaint under California's Song-Beverly Act and in April 2022 she amended her complaint.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to replace the Subject Vehicle or make restitutions to her after a reasonable number of attempts to repair the vehicle under the express warranty. Further, plaintiff maintained that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the Subject Vehicle was sold as used, without a full new car warranty because she was the first private owner..

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring her Song-Beverly Warranty Act claims pursuant to Rodriguez v. FCA US., LLC, 77 Cal. App. 5th 209 (2022) because the vehicle is not a "new motor vehicle" under the Act. Plaintiff leased the vehicle as a used vehicle. The vehicle was not leased to Plaintiff as certified pre-owned nor was it a "demonstrator" vehicle. Plaintiff's lease was not accompanied by a full and new vehicle warranty and thus Plaintiff's claims are barred. Moreover, Plaintiff's implied warranty claims fail because there is no implied warranty liability for an original manufacturer or distributor making express warranties on the vehicle when it was originally sold/leased as a new vehicle.

Result

The court entered summary judgment for defendant.