What is products liability – express warranty?

Useful Rulings on Products Liability – Express Warranty

Recent Rulings on Products Liability – Express Warranty

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Specifically, MaryJane is a plaintiff as to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract, the Second Cause of Action for Negligence, the Fourth Cause of Action for Breach of Express Warranty, and the Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of Implied Warranties. (Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Third Cause of Action for Indemnity following the filing of Turner’s Motion.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

ADRIENNE KINGSLYN, ET AL. V. WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES

Prior to settlement, Plaintiffs moved for summary adjudication (MSA) of their first cause of action for failure to repurchase/replace the RV and fourth cause of action for breach of express warranty. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion, ruling that “Plaintiffs’ own evidence fails to establish, as a matter of law, that there is a liquid propane leak.” (Sept. 4, 2019 Ruling, p. 3, ll. 13-14.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

JEFFREY FRASCO, ET AL. VS DOMAEN LTD., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Lowe, Axel Schmitzberger, Blanca Cano dba Cano Masonry, and Ruggeri Marble and Granite, Inc. for (1) negligence; (2) negligent supervision; (3) negligence per se; (4) breach of contracts re construction defects; (5) breach of contract re substantial completion; (6) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (7) breach of fiduciary duty; (8) breach of express warranty; (9) breach of implied warranty; (10) unjust enrichment/restitution; (11) accounting; (12) common count: money had and received

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DANIEL KANG VS VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

Fourth Cause of Action for Breach of Express Warranty (Civ. Code § 1791.2, subd. (a); § 1794) The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, section 1790 et seq.) governs warranties for consumer goods.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

JUANA EUSTOLIA HERNANDEZ VS. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

On May 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Song-Beverly Warranty Act; and (2) breach of express warranty under Song-Beverly Act.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

EVANGELINE C. WARD MICHAYLUK VS BN DEALERSHIP I, LLC, ET AL.

Discussion First Cause of Action: Breach of Express Warranty under the Song-Beverly Act Defendants contend that Plaintiff cannot show that Defendants failed to repair a nonconformity within a reasonable number of repair attempts.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SYLVIA RENE SUMMERS VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s complaint arises from an alleged defective 2017 Lincoln MKX (the “Subject Vehicle”) that Plaintiff purchased, alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of subdivision (D) of California Civil Code, Section 1793.2; (2) violation of subdivision (B) of California Civil Code, Section 1793.2; (3) violation of subdivision (A)(3) of California Civil Code, Section 1793.2; (4) breach of express warranty; (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (6) fraud by omission.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KATINA ANN WONG AS TRUSTEE OF THE MARY BETH WONG PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST DATED DECEMBER 21, 2012 VS HARRY H. JOH CONSTRUCTION INC.

Breach of Express Warranty. Defendant demurs to the FAC and each cause of action pursuant to CCP § 430.10(d)(e) and (f). The demurrer is based essentially on one simple ground – that Plaintiff lacks standing to assert these claims because she is not a party to the contract and does not qualify as a third party beneficiary to the contract. However, factual issues exist as to whether Plaintiff has standing to enforce rights under the contract.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KARINA BRAVO VS FCA US, LLC

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, (2) breach of express warranty, and (3) fraudulent inducement – concealment. Demurrer Defendant FCA demurs to the Complaint’s third cause of action for fraudulent inducement – concealment. FCA contends, inter alia, that this claim is barred by the economic loss rule. The Court agrees.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

DEREK TSAI VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, breach of express warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, breach of written warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and breach of implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ELISABETH GIMENEZ VS. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,

(Defendant) and Does 1 through 50, alleging: (1) breach of express warranty in violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; (2) breach of implied warranty in violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; and (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b). On May 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

GERALDINE J. TOBAR, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges: 1) Violation of Subdivision D of Civil Code Section 1793.2; 2) Violation of Subdivision B of Civil Code Section 1793.2; 3) Violation of Subdivision (A)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2; 4) Breach of Express Warranty; 5) Breach of Implied Warranty; 6) Fraudulent Inducement-Concealment. On September 27, 2019, Defendants filed a demurrer to the Sixth cause of action and a motion to strike paragraphs 17-69 and 93-111 from the FAC.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

PATEL M.D. VS. JELD-WEN, INC.

App. 4th 153, 157]) To state a claim for intentional misrepresentation claim based on a promise made without intent to perform, Plaintiffs must allege circumstances that support an inference of a contemporaneous intention not to perform when the promise is made, in order to differentiate the alleged false promise from a simple breach of contract, in this case breach of express warranty. (Tenzer v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

ZIV BAHAT, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

The Complaint alleges two causes of action for: 1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Song-Beverly Warranty Act); and 2) Breach of Express Warranty (Song-Beverly Warranty Act). The claims relate to a new 2016 GMC Yukon Plaintiffs purchased on October 3, 2016. On February 10, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable, with Production of Documents. This motion relates to the PMK deposition initially set for December 30, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

JAMES AND JAN LLC VS WALTER RIVERA ET AL

The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract against Rivera Defendants, (2) breach of contract against Doe Defendants, (3) breach of express warranty against Rivera Defendants, (4) negligence against Rivera Defendants, (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress by Jeanette against Rivera Defendants, (6) breach of contract against USIC, (7) breach of contract against AFS, (8) bad faith against USIC, (9) bad faith against AFS, and (10) lack of consortium by Robert against Rivera Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HUMBERTO SALAZAR, JR., ET AL. VS FCA US LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

The Complaint alleges three causes of action for: 1) breach of express warranty – violation of Song-Beverly Act; 2) breach of implied warranty – violation of Song-Beverly Act; and 3) fraudulent inducement – concealment. On February 4, 2019, Defendants answered. On February 26, 2020, Defendants move to adjudicate the third cause of action for fraudulent inducement and associated punitive damages request.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DIANE HIGHTREE V. AMPLIFY LTD

(Amplify) asserting causes of action for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.), violation of California False Advertising Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500 et seq.), and violation of California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.). The complaint alleges false, misleading, and deceptive claims were made by Amplify regarding its hair and skin care products.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

SANCHEZ-URQUIZA VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA

The complaint sets forth the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act— Breach of Express Warranty; (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Implied Warranty; (3) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2; (4) Fraudulent Inducement—Concealment. The present motion is brought by plaintiff to compel the attendance of defendant’s person most knowledgeable (PMK) at a deposition.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

NATHAN MADANI VS O'GARA COACH COMPANY LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

(5) Breach of Express Warranty; Violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Defendant O’Gara demurs to the Seventh Cause of Action for Breach of Express Warranty, and Eighth Cause of Action for Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act”), on grounds each cause of action fails to allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 430.10, subdivision (e).

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MONICA LLERENAS, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

OPPOSITION: Plaintiffs Monica Llerenas and Alenjandro Llerenas On October 9, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendant, alleging causes of action for: 1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act - Breach of Express Warranty; 2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act - Breach of Implied Warranty; 3) Violation of Song-Beverly Act - Section 1793.2; 4) Fraudulent Inducement-Concealment; 5) Fraudulent Inducement-Intentional Misrepresentation.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MARY LACAYO, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS, INC

procedural history Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on December 30, 2019, alleging seven causes of action: Violation of Song Beverly Action section 1793.2(d) Violation of Song Beverly Action section 1793.2(b) Violation of Song Beverly Action section 1793.2(A)(3) Breach of express warranty Breach of implied warranty Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Fraud by omission GM filed the present Demurrer and Motion to Strike on February 28, 2020. Plaintiffs filed Oppositions on April 9, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

MIGUEL ANGEL OLVERA, ET AL. V. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC.

On this basis, Plaintiffs assert causes of action against Defendant for: (1) “Violation of the Song- Beverly Act―Breach of Express Warranty”; (2) “Violation of the Song-Beverly Act―Breach of Implied Warranty”; and (3) “Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2.” Currently before the Court is Defendant’s demurrer to the second and third causes of action and motion to strike allegations from the complaint. II.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

ARA JIL-AGOPIAN VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICAN, LLC

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts two causes of action: (1) Breach of Express Warranty Obligations Under the Act; and (2) Breach of Implied Warranty Obligations Under the Act.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

REYNALDA VALDEZ OBESO, ET AL. VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

procedural history Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on January 6, 2020, alleging four causes of action: Breach of express warranty Breach of implied warranty Breach of Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2 Fraudulent inducement – concealment Nissan filed the present Demurrer and Motion to Strike on February 7, 2020. Plaintiffs filed Oppositions on April 14, 2020. Nissan filed a Reply to both Oppositions on April 21, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

EHSAN JELVEHMOGHADDAM VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

On June 16, 2020, Plaintiff dismissed the 2nd (breach of express warranty) cause of action, without prejudice, as to Dealer only. (6/16/20 Dismissal.) In deciding a motion to compel arbitration, trial courts must first decide whether an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between the parties, and then determine the second gateway issue of whether the claims are covered within the scope of the agreement. (See Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 36     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.