In Gonzalez v. Ford Motor Co., No. LA CV 19-00652 PA (ASx), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185279 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2019), Judge Anderson held that a vehicle manufacturer need not reimburse the consumer for negative equity financed into the RISC. Finally, Plaintiff argues Ford's repurchase offer was "less than 50% the amounts he had paid for the vehicle." (P.… Read More
It seems a bit granular to go up to the Court of Appeal, but in Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 2017 WL 5664371, at *3 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2017), the Court of Appeal held in an unpublished decision that Song-Beverly restitution does not include registration renewal fees. Although the list is nonexhaustive, the examples give guidance as to what constitutes… Read More
In Clayton v. Ford Motor Company, 2017 WL 2859628 (4th Dist., Div. 2 2017) (unpublished), the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's cut of a consumer's attorney fee request in a Song-Beverly case, finding that the trial court properly set the consumer lawyers' rate at $275/hour and reduced the fee claim for work done on matters for which… Read More
In Goglin v. BMW of North America, LLC, 2016 WL 6135482, at *5–6 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2016), the Court of Appeal held that a so-called Benson response to a CLRA letter does not immunize an auto dealer/manufacturer from attorneys' fees incurred to prosecute a claim under the Song-Beverly Act. Both BMW North America and BMW San Diego contend Goglin is… Read More
In Daniel v. Ford Motor Co., 2015 WL 7740646, at *2-4 (9th Cir. 2015), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit stated that "The focus of this case is whether Ford Motor Company sold the plaintiffs a pig in the poke." Cute. But, they felt the need to footnote what the quote actually meant: The English colloquialisms such as… Read More
In Peterson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2014 WL 4494872 (C.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Carter applied a narrow intepretation of the California Court of Appeal’s Mexia decision that had expanded the time during which a consumer can bring a breach of implied warranty claim. Mazda argues that Ms. Peterson's Song– Beverly claims fails because the allegation that… 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 Mega RV Corporation v. HWH Corporation, 2014 WL 1691371 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2014), here, the California Court of Appeal held that the Song Beverly Act does not apply to component part manufactures unless they gave an express warranty. Civ. Code section 1792, part of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, provides that every retail sale of consumer goods is accompanied… Read More
In an unpublished decision involving a purportedly defective yacht, the California Court of Appeal held in Andersen v. Pacific Asian Enterprises, Inc., 2012 WL 130473 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2012) that the Song-Beverly Act does not afford loss-of-use damages in the absence of actual expenses expended to cover. The facts were as follows. In April 2003, Andersen entered into a contract… Read More
In Orue v. Ford Motor Service Co., 2011 WL 6176190 (9th Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a service contract complied with Song-Beverly because it conferred benefits additional to the Manufacturer’s warranty: The district court correctly concluded that the service contract sold by Ford did not violate the Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal… Read More
