In Fisher v. DCH Temecula Imports, LLC (2010) 2010 DAR 12715 , the California Court of Appeal refused to enforce an arbitration clause with a class action waiver in it, distinguishing Arguelles-Romero v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 825 as merely dealing with claims under the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act, not the CLRA, -- the latter of which gives… Read More
In Davis v. Ford Credit, 2009 WL 3859327 (2009), the California Court of Appeal in Los Angeles held that Ford Credit’s practice of applying a payment to past-due installments first, rather than to the current monthly installment, did not violate the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act’s ban on late-fee pyramiding. (Civ. Code, § 2982(k).) The facts of the case were as… Read More
In Tietsworth v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 2009 WL 3320486 (N.D.Cal. 2009), Judge Fogel explained, As a threshold matter, the parties disagree with respect to whether Plaintiffs' UCL and CLRA claims are subject to the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). This issue was addressed by the Ninth Circuit in Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th… Read More
In O’Donovan v. CashCall, Inc., 2009 WL 1833990 (N.D.Cal. 2009), Judge James addressed whether plaintiffs stated a class action claim against CashCall under the CLRA. Judge James held that Plaintiffs’ claim under the UCL failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, explaining: Defendant notes that the California Court of Appeal has held that the extension… Read More
In Kearns v. Ford Motor Company, --- F.3d ----, 2009 WL 1578535 (9th Cir. 2009), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied the heighted pleading standing of FRCP 9(b) for CLRA and UCL claims, rather than the looser state law pleading standard for causes of action arising under such statutes, even if the case arose from one removed… Read More
In In re: Jamster Marketing Litigation, 2009 WL 1456632 (S.D.Cal. 2009), Judge Miller ruled on whether a Wireless Provider could be held vicariously liable under the CLRA and UCL for alleged misleading advertising by Content Providers. While a bit far afield from auto finance, the point of law is pertinent as to whether defendants sued under such legal theories may… Read More
In Fairbanks v. Superior Court, 2009 WL 1035264 (2009), the California Supreme Court held that life insurance is neither a “good” nor a “service” subject to the CLRA. The Supreme Court explained: The Consumers Legal Remedies Act defines “goods” as “tangible chattels bought or leased for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, including certificates or coupons exchangeable for… Read More
In Berry v. Indianapolis Life Ins. Company, 2009 WL 424549 (N.D.Tex. 2009), Judge Boyle found the CLRA inapplicable to insurance products. Judge Boyle explained: Indianapolis Life also argues that the Complaint fails to state a claim based on the alleged violation of the CLRA, because the CLRA applies only to the “sale or lease of goods and services.” Cal.… Read More
In In re On-Star Contract Litigation, 2009 WL 415990 (E.D.Mich. 2009), Judge Cox allowed a claim to proceed as pleaded under the CLRA, denying an FRCP 12(b)(6) Motion. The Plaintiffs allege that In 2002 Defendants' OnStar equipment relied on analog cellular signals to function.”(MAC at 4).“In August 2002, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) ruled that cellular telephone companies need not… Read More
In Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. (2009) --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2009 WL 197560, the California Supreme Court held that a CLRA plaintiff must have actually been damaged in order to maintain a CLRA claim. The case arose from the plaintiffs' lawsuit against their cellular telephone company, alleging that its arbitration agreement was unconscionable, even though plaintiffs did not allege that… Read More
In Paduano v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2009) 2009 WL 57806, the California Court of Appeal held that Federal law (the Energy Policy and Conservation Act) specifying the use of EPA estimates of mileage preempts breach of warranty claims based on a Hybrid vehicle's failure to achieve EPA mileage estimates. However, the EPCA did not preempt claims under the CLRA and… Read More
In Coordinated Automobile Lease Tax Cases (L.A.Sup. Coord. No. JCCP 4378), Judge Anthony Mohr presided over litigation involving whether automobile leases and the holders of such contracts properly assessed use taxes on such items as acquisition fees and service contracts. On April 9, 2008, Judge Mohr sustained the demurrers of the various automobile finance companies without leave to amend, holding… Read More
In Roybal v. Equifax, Judge England issued three separate opinions addressing liability of furnishers and credit reporting agencies. In Roybal v. Equifax, 2008 WL 453447 (E.D.Cal. 2008), Judge England addressed the CRAs for publishing allegedly inaccurate credit information about the plaintiff. First, Judge England allowed a wife to pursue a claim for inaccuracies in the husband's credit report: The… Read More
It's not an automobile case, but is interesting for statements of law applied. In Galindo v. Financo Financial, Inc., 2008 WL 4452344 (N.D.Cal. 2008), Judge William Alsup required strict compliance with the CLRA's pre-filing notice requirement: California courts require “strict” compliance with Section 1782. Outboard Marine Corp. v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.App.3d 30, 40-41, 124 Cal.Rptr. 852 (1975). Plaintiffs filed the… Read More
When an out-of-state car dealer successfully demonstrates that California had no jurisdiction over it, does the trial court retain jurisdiction to award attorneys fees to that defendant? Yes it does, said a California Court of Appeal in Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc. (2008) __ Cal.Rptr. 3d __ 2008 WL 4347761. Moreover, in determining whether the car dealer was… Read More
Does damage to a new automobile in a dealer's inventory, however minor and regardless of repair, necessarily strip the vehicle of its status as “new” under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA; Civ. Code § 1750 et. seq.? In Bourgi v. West Covina Motors, Inc. -- Cal.Rptr.3d --, 2008 WL 4335593 (2008), the Court of Appeal said that it did… Read More
