Joining a recent string of other cases, this decision refuses to follow Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486, and holds instead that a standard California car sale contract with an arbitration clause does not require the car buyer to arbitrate his warranty claims or Song Beverly Act claims against the car's manufacturer. Read More
The Song-Beverly Warranty Act requires new car manufacturers to provide restitution of the purchase price to the buyer of a defective car. (Civ. Code 1793.2(d)(2)(B).) This decision holds that if the buyer trades in or sells the defective car. the trade in credit or resale price is not deducted from the restitution that the manufacturer must pay, at least when… Read More
Unlike the FEHA, the Song-Beverly Act's one-sided attorney fee and cost clause does not expressly exempt Song-Beverly fee and cost awards from CCP 998's fee and cost shifting framework when the plaintiff does not accept the 998 offer and later recovers less than that offer. Hence, CCP 998 applies to Song-Beverly Act claims. Section 998 aoplies even when the lawsuit… Read More
Agreeing with Montemayor v. Ford Motor Co. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 958 and other recent cases refusing to follow Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486, this decision holds that a standard California car sale contract with an arbitration clause does not require the car buyer to arbitrate his warranty claims or Song Beverly Act claims against the car's… Read More
The Song-Beverly Act (Civ. Code 1790.1) renders any waiver of its provisions contrary to public policy, unenforceable and void. This decision holds that while the antiwaiver provision does not bar all settlement agreements resolving Song-Beverly Act claims, it did invalidate the waiver of Song-Beverly Act rights in the pre-litigation settlement agreement in this case because there was no evidence that… Read More
Agreeing with Figueroa v. FCA US LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 708 (though by different reasoning), not with Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 1052, this decision holds that the manufacturer is not entitled to set off against damages otherwise due the car buyer under the Song-Beverly Act, the amount the car buyer received on trading the defective car… Read More
Defendant's 998 offer was valid and shifted costs when plaintiff later settled for the same amount as the 998 offer. The offer was to pay Chen $160,000; he would be required to return the car with clean title; and he would be allowed to seek an award of attorney fees and costs by noticed motion, the amount to be determined… Read More
Defendant in this lemon law case made a proper 998 offer of $35,001 plus either (a) $10,000 for pre-offer fees and costs, or (b) the sum the court awards for preoffer fees and costs (at the plaintiff's election) in exchange for dismissal of the case and return of possession of and title to the car. Even though the lemon law… Read More
The economic loss rule does not bar a claim for fraudulent inducement to buy a car. Plaintiffs here alleged that Nissan fraudulently induced them to buy a Nissan Sentra by intentionally concealing facts about its defective transmission which caused dangerous gaps in power to the wheels. Under the reasoning of Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979,… Read More
Disagreeing with Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 1052, this decision holds that a car manufacturer may not offset the consumer's "profits" on resale or trade-in of a lemon car against the restitution amounts otherwise recoverable by a consumer as a result of the manufacturer's violation of the Song-Beverly Act. To allow an offset would contradict the clear… Read More
The Song-Beverly Act's replace-or-refund remedy applies only to unrepaired defects in new cars, which the Act defines to include dealer owned and demonstrator cars or other motor vehicles sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty. (Civ. Code 1793.22(e)(2).) This decision holds that a car which was previously sold to another consumer is not a "new" car for these purposes even… Read More
Assuming that it is unconstitutional to award statutory penalties for the same wrongful conduct that is also a basis for a punitive damage award, this decision holds that the jury's award of punitive damages for fraud and statutory double damages under the Song-Beverly Act did not offend that rule. The punitive damages were for misrepresentations that induced purchase of the… Read More
This case holds that consumers may recover uncapped attorney fees against holders under the FTC Holder Rule. Though the attorney fees are part of the "recovery" that the Holder Rule itself caps, the FTC Holder Rule does not preempt any state laws, but merely prescribes a required contract clause. So, Civil Code 1459.5 is not preempted and it allows full… Read More
Under the CLRA (Civ. Code 1792(b), no "action for damages" may be brought against a defendant that offers appropriate correction within 30 days of receiving the plaintiff's notice of violation of the statute. This decision holds that "action for damages" includes--and the subsection therefore bars--any claim for compensatory damages or for restitution under the CLRA. The decision also holds that… Read More
