Grayton

INTRODUCTION

Maurice Grayton sued CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC (CarMax) and

Capital One N.A. (Capital One) contending the car he purchased was defective. He

appeals a judgment of dismissal following the trial court's order sustaining a demurrer to

his second amended complaint (SAC) in its entirety without leave to amend. Although

difficult to decipher, Grayton appears to contend on appeal (1) his complaint adequately

pleaded a cause of action for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act

(Song-Beverly Act) (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.) and (2) the court abused its discretion in

denying his request for leave to amend. Finding no merit in either contention, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A

Factual Allegations

We derive the facts from the complaints. (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City

of La Habra (2001) 25 Cal.4th 809, 814.)

Grayton purchased a 2002 Chevrolet Corvette in September 2012 from CarMax

after looking for a Corvette for several months. Since CarMax advertised vehicles as

"carefully inspected and reconditioned" Grayton felt "assured that any vehicle undergoing

such a rigorous inspection would not have mechanical…