Planet Clair v. American Honda Motor Co. CA2/7, B308151

Background

Planet Clair LLC purchased a new 2020 Honda Passport and alleged serious defects (transmission/powertrain) discovered shortly after delivery.
Plaintiff delivered the vehicle for repair but alleges Honda failed to fix it after a reasonable number of attempts; sought remedies under the Song‑Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (breach of implied and express warranties; restitution/replacement; damages and penalties).
The complaint stated the vehicle was purchased “for personal, family, and/or household purposes of its principal.”
American Honda demurred, arguing the Song‑Beverly Act does not cover corporate purchases unless the vehicle was bought/used primarily for business (per § 1793.22(e)(2)); also argued Planet Clair could not cure the pleading by amendment.
The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment; the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, directing the trial court to allow leave to amend.
The appellate court held Planet Clair may plead facts showing the vehicle was bought/used primarily for a business purpose and must allege the statutory elements for a “new motor vehicle” (weight under 10,000 lbs and five or fewer vehicles registered in CA); the complaint adequately alleged reasonable repair attempts.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Song‑Beverly applies to a corporate purchaser when the complaint alleges the vehicle was for the principal’s personal use	Personal use by a principal can coincide with a business purpose; therefore Act may apply	Corporate purchases are covered only if vehicle bought/used primarily for business; allegation of personal use defeats coverage	Allegation of personal use is inconsistent with the statute’s “primarily for business” requirement, but plaintiff may amend to plead underlying facts showing primary business use and statutory elements for a “new motor vehicle”
Whether implied‑warranty provisions apply to corporate purchasers not expressly covered by the “new motor vehicle” definition	Implied warranty claims are not limited to the “new motor vehicle” definition	Implied warranty provisions apply only to individual buyers, not corporate entities	Court adopted Park City reasoning: implied‑warranty protections must at least be read to include corporate purchasers who meet the § 1793.22 new motor vehicle definition; did not decide broader applicability
Whether alleging defendant had a “reasonable number of attempts” to repair was sufficiently pleaded	Allegation that defendant failed to repair after a reasonable number of opportunities is adequate at pleading stage	That allegation is conclusory and insufficient	Pleading that repairs failed “after a reasonable number of opportunities” is sufficient; plaintiff need not plead evidentiary facts that trigger statutory rebuttable presumptions
Whether demurrer should have been sustained without leave to amend	Plaintiff sought leave to allege facts showing primary business use and statutory elements	Dismissal without leave appropriate because complaint pleaded personal use and thus cannot be cured	Demurrer should not have been sustained without leave; case remanded with directions to permit amendment

Key Cases Cited

Mathews v. Becerra, 8 Cal.5th 756 (de novo review of demurrer and standards for pleading)
Park City Services, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 144 Cal.App.4th 295 (read implied‑warranty provisions to include certain corporate purchasers under the new motor vehicle definition)
Brand v. Hyundai Motor America, 226 Cal.App.4th 1538 (Song‑Beverly implied warranty arises by operation of law)
Hanna v. Mercedes‑Benz USA, LLC, 36 Cal.App.5th 493 (statutory remedies for express warranties on new motor vehicles)
Silvio v. Ford Motor Co., 109 Cal.App.4th 1205 (reasonable number of repair attempts requires more than one attempt)
Aubry v. Tri‑City Hospital Dist., 2 Cal.4th 962 (leave to amend and liberality in curing pleading defects)