Court Opinion

ID: 9750478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:00:38.328374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:10.890047
License: Public Domain

WISEMAN, J., Concurring.
I concur in the holding that summary judgment was properly granted based on Vehicle Code section 24007. The dealer-to-dealer sale exemption under section 24007 prevented Enterprise Leasing Company West from being held liable to appellants for any failure to comply with the Vehicle Code. As a result, I find section 24007 dispositive on the issue.
In my opinion, the analysis with respect to whether the subject vehicle qualified as a total-loss salvage vehicle under Vehicle Code section 544 is unnecessary to the decision and dictum. In fact, during oral argument, the parties agreed that if we found that section 24007 barred the claims, it would be unnecessary to reach the issue under section 544. “Ordinarily, when an appellate court concludes that affirmance of the judgment is proper on certain grounds it will rest its decision on those grounds and not consider alternative grounds which may be available.” (Filipino Accountants’ Assn. v. State Bd. of Accountancy (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 1023, 1029 [204 Cal.Rptr. 913]; see also Young v. Three for One Oil Royalties (1934) 1 Cal.2d 639, 647-648 [36 P.2d 1065] [leaving question that was unnecessary to decision for future proceeding].) I see no reason here to depart from this general rule.
Appellants’ petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied August 18, 2004. Chin, J., did not participate therein.