CLRA -- Civil Code § 1770

In Benson v. Southern California Auto Sales, Inc., 2015 WL 5047611 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2015), the California Court of Appeal found that a car dealer who lost at trial nevertheless was not responsible for $171k in attorneys' fees incurred by Plaintiff because the dealer had offered full relief in response to the 30-day CLRA letter at the inception of the… Read More

In Edwards v. Ford Motor Co., --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2015 WL 847193 (9th Cir. 2015), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s denial of class certification of a CLRA claim against a vehicle manufacturer. In an action alleging consumer protection claims based on a vehicle defect, commonality is satisfied when “[t]he claims of all prospective… Read More

In Bayol v. Zipcar, Inc., 2015 WL 394515 (N.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Henderson found that a Plaintiff stated a claim for the imposition of illegal late fees under a fractional auto renter’s agreement. California law places significant restrictions on a party's ability to use a consumer contract to set what damages it will be entitled to in the event of a… Read More

In Overholt v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, 2015 WL 403873 (E.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Burrell granted summary judgment to a car dealer who allegedly had falsely stated that the vehicle was “certified” and allegedly had failed to disclose that the vehicle was prior daily rental. On December 31, 2011, Plaintiff purchased a used 2010 Jeep Liberty (the “Jeep.”) from CarMax.… Read More

In CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC v. Superior Court, 2014 WL 4533445 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2014), the Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision took the extraordinary step of issuing a Peremptory Writ of Mandate directing the trial court to enter summary judgment to a Car Dealer on a consumer’s CLRA claim on the basis that the Car Dealer had… Read More

In Chulick–Perez v. Carmax Auto Superstores California, LLC, 2014 WL 2154479 (E.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Nunley granted a car dealer's motion to dismiss a Plaintiff's claim that a dealer's used-vehicle certification program violated Song-Beverly, the CLRA and the UCL.  The facts were as follows: On December 16, 2011, Plaintiff Michelle Chulick–Perez (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) bought a 2003 BMW X5 (hereinafter “the vehicle”) from… Read More

In Muller v. Auto Mission, Ltd., 2013 WL 1996916 (N.D.Cal. 2013), Magistrate Judge Cousins remanded a removed state court action that alleged a host of Rees-Levering Automobile Sales & Finance Act violations, many of which included embedded federal claims.  Judge Cousins found an absence of substantial federal question, and rejected the defendants’ contention that a defense of compliance with federal… Read More

In Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2013 WL 412900 (2013), the Court of Appeal found that the FTC Holder Rule was not defensive in nature only, and that a consumer can assert affirmative ‘claims and defenses’ against the Holder, as the FTC’s May 3, 2012 Advisory Opinion also held. The Holder Rule unambiguously allows the buyer to… Read More

In Rojas v. Platinum Auto Group, Inc. --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2013 WL 156561 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2013), the California Court of Appeal required strict compliance under Rees-Levering, finding that a dealer’s error of improperly listing a $2,000 ‘down-payment’ on the downpayment line (line 6G) of the standard auto RISC as opposed to the ‘deferred downpayment’ line (line 6D) rendered the… Read More

Sorry good readers; I couldn't resist this case. Does the UCL or CLRA protect virtual characters in a virtual world existing only on-line against virtually fraudulent transactions?  Magistrate Judge Ryu in San Francisco said, for the most part, no.  (Evans v. Linden Research, Inc. 2012 WL 5877579 (N.D.Cal. 2012)). This putative class action involves the internet role-playing virtual world entitled Second… Read More

In Frezza v. Google Inc., 2012 WL 5877587 (N.D.Cal. (2012), Judge Whyte held (in evaluating Google's 'tag' program) that the CLRA applies only to consumer transactions, and does not apply to business transactions. The court first looks to whether plaintiffs even qualify as consumers for protection under the CLRA. A violation of the CLRA may only be alleged by a consumer. Von… Read More

In a decision that is important to auto finance companies liable under the FTC Holder Rule where the assigning dealer is defunct, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held in Pierce v. Western Sur. Co., --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2012 WL 2362579 (Cal.App. 5 Dist.), that an Automobile Dealer Surety Bond also covered the attorneys’ fees incurred by a consumer Plaintiff’s… Read More

In Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 89176 (9th Cir. 2012), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed certification of a nationwide class against Honda, holding that the consumer protection laws of each state were different, were important, and should be applied to each of their own residents’ claims.     Honda… Read More

In Townsend v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc., 2012 WL 12736 (C.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Fairbank found that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the CLRA for conspiring to “rig” arbitration procedures by forcing consumers to agree to unfair arbitration clauses that disfavor consumers in connection with bank and credit card accounts.     Plaintiff's CLRA claim alleges that had Plaintiff… Read More

In Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 2011 WL 6322200 (9th Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Plaintiffs’ CLRA and UCL class action based on the claim that an automobile manufacturer failed to disclose the risk that ignition locks in its Focus vehicles from model years 2000 through 2006 would fail after the warranty expired. The… Read More

It's not an auto finance case, as it involves the CLRA and enforcement of an arbitration clause post-Concepcion, and both issues arise in automobile and personal property finance, I'm reporting on it for my readers.    In Khan v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., 2011 WL 4853365 (N.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Armstrong held that Concepcion preempted required enforcement of an arbitration clause… Read More

In Bourgi v. West Covina Motors, Inc., 2011 WL 2207477 (2011), the California Court of Appeal held in an unpublished decision that a dealer’s use of non-OEM parts to repair a new vehicle damaged in shipment did not negate the safe harbor of Vehicle Code 9990-1.  In a previous opinion, the Court had held that   In Bourgi I, we… Read More

In LaGrou v. Ford Motor Company, 2011 WL 2152832 (2011), the Court of Appeal in an unpublished opinion upheld dismissal of a class action against an automobile manufacturer arising from its termination of a credit card incentive program, which had no annual fee but allowed cardmembers to earn a 5 percent rebate (rebate) toward the purchase or lease of a… Read More

In Arellano v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 2011 WL 1842712 (N.D. Cal. 2011),  Judge Alsup held that the United States Supreme Court meant what it said in Concepcion – state laws can not impose impediments to arbitration lest such laws be preempted. Judge Alsup took the next step beyond Concepcion, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts any state-law impediment to arbitration… Read More

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