In Martinez v. Kia Motors America, Inc., --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2011 WL 711878 (2011), the California Court of Appeal rejected a vehicle manufacturer’s claim that the consumer must be in possession of the vehicle (i.e. not have had it repossessed) in order to prevail in a lemon law case. The Court of Appeal explained: Plaintiff and appellant Juanita Martinez… Read More
In DeSiqueira v. Toyota Motor Ins. Services, Inc., 2011 WL 362400 (2011), the California Court of Appeal held in an unpublished opinion that a manufacturer’s extended service contract did not violate the Song-Beverly Act merely because the Plaintiff “has a dismal opinion of the importance or value of the Contract's additional benefits”. The Court of Appeal explained: The Warranty… Read More
In Karapetian v. Kia Motors America, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2010 WL 4678691 (C.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Carney exercised his discretion to reduce Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in a lemon law case. In Karapetian, the Plaintiff’s counsel rejected the defendant’s Rule 68 offer and did not do better in the ultimate settlement of the Action, even though Plaintiff prevailed in the case. … Read More
In Lukather v. General Motors, L.L.C. 2010 WL 377035 (2010), a vehicle manufacturer appealed following a bench trial and court award of damages, a civil penalty, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees and costs under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Act), Civil Code sections 1790 et seq., known as California's “lemon law.” The Court of Appeal rejected the manufacturer’s contentions that… Read More
In D.L. Edmonson Selective Service Inc. v. LCW Automotive Corp. 2010 WL 309018 (C.D.Cal. 2010), the Court found the Song-Beverly Act not applicable to a vehicle delivered out-of-state, explaining: As a threshold issue, LCW contends that the Song-Beverly Act does not apply to this case because the limousine was delivered to and accepted by plaintiff in Texas, not California.FN29 “[F]or… Read More
In Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc.2009 WL 1651442 (2009), the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the Song-Beverly Act adds to the UCC's implied warranty of merchantability by giving the warranty a duration equal to any express warranty on the goods, but at least 60 days and no more than a year after purchase. (Civ. Code § 1791.1(c)) … Read More
In Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2009 WL 1578400 (2009), the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District held that the Song-Beverly Act did not preclude an award of pre-judgment interest. The Court of Appeal explained: Civil Code section 3287 is the statutory basis for pre-judgment interest. Subdivision (a) of section 3287 states, in part: “Every… Read More
In Galicia v. Country Coach, Inc. 2009 WL 1144224 (9th Cir. 2009), an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that deliver of an RV outside the state of California prevented application of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act to the transaction. The district court did not err in granting McMahon's summary judgment. The Galicias' Song-Beverly… Read More
In Ward v. Fleetwood Motor Homes (2009) 2009 WL 311407, the California Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision denied relief to a motor home buyer under the Song Beverly Act. The case involved engine trouble which California purchasers of an RV had with their RV while en route to Mt. Rushmore. Caterpillar, the manufacturer of the engine, paid $2,206… Read More
In Aquair Ventures, LLC v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 2009 WL 150963 (N.D.Cal. 2009), Judge Conti ruled on whether a corporate purchaser of a motor home who took delivery outside the state of Calfornia could obtain protection by the Song-Beverly Act. As to the latter, Judge Conti said yes; as to the former, Judge Conti said no. As to a… Read More
In Lyman v. Mercedes-Benz, USA, LLC, 2009 WL 143695 (2009), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District held in an unpublished decision that the Song-Beverly Act does not protect a dealer who has issued special dealer plates rather than registered the vehicle under the Vehicle Code. The Court of Appeal explained: The narrow issue in this appeal is… 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
