Medina v. St. George Auto Sales, Inc.

324 Cal.Rptr.3d 94

Jose MEDINA, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.ST. GEORGE AUTO SALES, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

G063909

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3.

Filed July 26, 2024

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Brian S. McCarville, Judge. Affirmed. (Super. Ct. No. CIVDS1822556)

Wade W. Poulson, Carlsbad, for Defendants and Appellants.

Law Offices of Robert B. Mobasseri and David Alan Cooper, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

MOORE, J.

Respondent Jose Medina (Medina) purchased a used car (the car) from appellant St. George Auto Sales, Inc. (St. George) in December 2014. Appellant Alaska Federal Credit Union (Alaska Federal) financed the purchase. In August 2018, Medina filed a lawsuit against St. George and Alaska Federal (collectively, defendants) asserting a claim under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (the CLRA; Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.).¹ Generally, Medina alleged St. George had misrepresented that the car’s engine was properly functioning and had also concealed extensive repairs to the car’s engine to induce him into purchasing the car.

Defendants argued the CLRA claim was barred by its three-year statute of limitations. They asserted the CLRA’s statute of limitations was strictly applied, and its accrual date was not extended by the discovery rule. And, even if it was, Medina had sufficient notice of his CLRA claim by March 2015, due to the activation of the car’s check engine light multiple times. Defendants asserted these arguments in a demurrer, which was overruled, and a motion for summary judgment, which was denied. Likewise, at trial, defendants moved for nonsuit on these same grounds, but the nonsuit motion was also denied. In all three rulings, the trial court found there were questions of fact as to when Medina should have suspected defendants had harmed him. The jury eventually found for Medina, and judgment was entered in his favor.

On appeal, defendants argue the court should have found the CLRA claim was time-barred as a matter of law in its ruling on the demurrer, the summary judgment motion, or the nonsuit motion. Among other things, they contend the discovery rule does not apply to the CLRA’s statute of limitations. No appellate court within California has squarely addressed this question. We find the discovery rule does apply and publish this case for that reason.

As to the remaining issues, defendants have failed to show they were prejudiced by the demurrer and the summary judgment rulings. They received a full trial on the statute of limitations issue, and the jury found against them. We also find no error in the trial court’s denial of the nonsuit motion on grounds there were questions of fact as to when Medina’s cause of action accrued. Thus, we affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. Medina Buys The Cab

St, George sells used cars. In September 2014, it obtained a Chrysler 300 (defined above as, the car) at an auction with the intent to resell it. After the auction, its mechanics discovered the car had engine problems. Since the car was still under the manufacturer’s warranty, St. George sent it to a Chrysler dealership in Ontario (Chrysler Ontario) where it underwent engine repairs for nearly two months.

Medina purchased the car from St. George near the end of December 2014. Alaska Federal financed the purchase. Prior to the purchase, St. George represented to Medina that the car’s engine was properly functioning. It also represented that the car "was in good condition," and that St. George "[sold] nothing but quality vehicles." At no point during the sale did St. George disclose to Medina that the car had undergone nearly two months of engine work.

On Medina’s drive home from the dealership after the purchase, the car’s check engine light activated. Medina called the salesperson, and asked, "what’s going on? You told me everything was going to be in good condition. And here I am driving home, and the check engine light is coming on. What’s going on?" Medina returned the car to St. George for service the next week.

Service on the car took about a week, and he received it back in the middle of January 2015. Within a day or two of receiving it back from service, the check engine light came on again. Medina called St. George and informed them the check engine light was on again and the problem had not been fixed. Medina dropped the car off for service at St. George for a second time. The repair took about two weeks, and Medina received it back in early February 2015. Medina was informed repairs were made to the car’s oxygen sensor and the catalytic converter.²

The check engine light came on for a third time in late February 2015, about a week or two after the last service. Medina brought the car back to St. George, which sent it to Chrysler Ontario for service. Medina had trouble contacting St. George, so he called Chrysler Ontario directly and was told his car had been ready for over a week. Evidence at trial indicates an oxygen sensor was replaced. After Medina picked up the car from Chrysler Ontario, he drove over to St. George. He found a St. George salesperson on the sales floor and said, "what’s going on …. This has been going on since I purchased the vehicle. The check engine light has been coming on, and now [the service manager] is not returning my calls." The employee found the service manager, and Medina told him, "now I have a problem. [I]’m pretty sure the check engine light is going to come back on."

About a week later, the check engine light came back on for a fourth time, and Medina brought the car back to St. George around the middle of March 2015. After he dropped off the car, a St. George employee drove Medina home (the driver). Medina testified at trial that the driver indicated he had been present when the car was first brought to St. George following the auction. The driver told Medina that a St. George mechanic plugged a scanner into the car and started clearing engine codes and "[did] a bunch of Mickey Mouses." Medina recalled thinking, "I’m listening and thinking to myself man they are not returning my calls, and he’s telling me this. And it’s like you know what, the car speaks for itself. Whatever the car does …. I can only get upset as much as I can, but the car speaks for itself."

After Medina received the car back, the check engine light came on for a fifth time around the middle of April 2015. Medina stated at trial, he was "curious as to [what was] the problem with the car." After some thought, he decided not to take the vehicle back to St. George (or anywhere) for repairs and to "leave it in God’s hands and see where it [went] from there. He drove the car for several months with the check engine light on and testified "the car was running fine" during this period.

In December 2015, the car’s engine started misfiring. Medina took the car to a Chrysler dealership in Monrovia (Chrysler Monrovia) "for a second opinion." Chrysler Monrovia determined the car’s "engine itself had problems." Medina then asked the service advisor at Chrysler Monrovia for a copy of the previous work orders on the car. The service advisor provided them, and Medina learned of the extensive repairs to the car’s engine before he bought it. Medina testified the prior work orders surprised him. After seeing them, "I felt cold to my feet, and I knew that when I [saw] this that St. George was concealing the truth about the car before they sold it to me."

II. Medina's Complaint And Pretrial Motions

On August 23, 2018, Medina filed a lawsuit against defendants asserting several claims, including violation of the CLRA. Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted with leave to amend.

Medina filed an amended complaint (the complaint) that again asserted a CLRA claim against defendants. The CLRA claim was based on allegations St. George had misrepresented that (1) the car had a properly functioning engine, (2) the vehicle had undergone an inspection, and (3) St. George sold nothing but quality vehicles. The complaint also alleged (1) the check engine light came on several times in the first three months after Medina’s purchase, (2) various repairs were made to the car after the check engine light came on, and (3) the driver told Medina in March 2015 that St. George erased codes from vehicles’ computers before selling them.

Defendants demurred to the complaint on grounds the three-year statute of limitations had run on the CLRA claim. (See § 1783.) St. George made the alleged misrepresentations in December 2014, but Medina did not file suit until August 2018. Defendants also argued that even if the discovery rule extended the accrual date of the CLRA claim, Medina had notice of the engine problems by at least February 2015 based on the check engine light activity. The court overruled the demurer as to the CLRA claim, finding there were issues of fact as to whether "there was a justification for the delayed discovery." The court sustained the demurrer to Medina’s only other claim, leaving the CLRA claim as Medina’s sole cause of action.

Defendants later moved for summary judgment on grounds the CLRA claim was time-barred. In particular, they argued Medina was aware of his claims by at least March 2015 due to the multiple check engine lights and Medina’s deposition testimony that the driver told him St. George erased codes and made "Mickey Mouse" fixes to cars. Medina did not dispute these facts but argued it was a question of fact as to whether his behavior was reasonable following these events.

The court denied defendants’ summary judgment motion. It did not issue a written order. Rather, during the hearing, the court heard the parties’ arguments as to the statute of limitations and succinctly stated, "it is a question of fact that the jury must determine."

III. Trial

The court granted defendants’ motion to bifurcate the trial to try the statute of limitations issue first. The...