Products Liability – Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Useful Rulings on Products Liability – Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Recent Rulings on Products Liability – Implied Warranty of Merchantability

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

“The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale. [Citations.] Indeed, “[u]ndisclosed latent defects ... are the very evil that the implied warranty of merchantability was designed to remedy.” [Citation.] In the case of a latent defect, a product is rendered unmerchantable, and the warranty of merchantability is breached, by the existence of the unseen defect, not by its subsequent discovery.” (Id. at 1304–1305.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

JOSE MEZA VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICAN, INC

(“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for: Violation of Subdivision (d) of Civil Code Section 1793.2 Violation of Subdivision (b) of Civil Code Section 1793.2 Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2 Breach of Express Written Warranty (Civil Code § 1791.2(a); § 1794) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civil Code § 1791.1; § 1794) A Trial Setting Conference is set for July 13, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

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

BRUCE A ARONSON VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

· Plaintiff alleges that, in addition to the express warranty that Plaintiff received when purchasing the vehicle, “an implied warranty of merchantability was created under California law.” FAC, ¶ 93. · Plaintiff seeks remedies pursuant to, among other remedies, “California Commercial Code Sections 2711-2715…” FAC, ¶ 100 & Prayer for Relief §g. The court rejects Kia’s arguments that Plaintiff insufficiently pled the alleged defects and deformities on which Plaintiff bases his first cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

DAVID WALLENSTEIN, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action: (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 written warranty; (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (6) negligent repair.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

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

BRUCE A ARONSON VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

Plaintiff alleges that, in addition to the express warranty that Plaintiff received when purchasing the vehicle, “an implied warranty of merchantability was created under California law.” FAC, ¶ 93. Plaintiff seeks remedies pursuant to, among other remedies, “California Commercial Code Sections 2711-2715…” FAC, ¶ 100 & Prayer for Relief §g. The court rejects Kia’s arguments that Plaintiff insufficiently pled the alleged defects and deformities on which Plaintiff bases his first cause of action.

  • 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

LUIS VILLA VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

Issue No.2: Existence of a Valid Arbitration Agreement Plaintiff asserts that the only claim asserted against Moving Defendant is for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Plaintiff contends that the RISC shows Moving Defendant’s clear intention to exclude warranty claims from the terms and conditions of the finance agreement.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

MARY ANN SERNA , ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, ET AL.

(a); § 1794); Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civ. Code § 1791.1; § 1794; § 1795.5); and Fraud by Omission. On November 26, 2019, Defendant filed a demurrer with motion to strike as to the FAC. On February 3, 2020, the Court overruled Defendant’s demurrer and denied its motion to strike.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

EDDIE URQUIZA VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following causes of action against BMW: (1) Violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(d), (2) Violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(b), (3) Violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(a)(3), (4) Breach of Express Written Warranty, (5) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, and (6) Fraud.

  • 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

KIM NGO VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC , ET AL.

The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(d), (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(b), (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(a)(3), (4) breach of express written warranty, (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and (6) negligent repair. Plaintiff’s causes of action arise from her purchase of a 2013 BMW 535i (Vehicle). Discussion Defendants BMWNA and BH BMW move to compel Plaintiff to submit this action to binding arbitration.[1] A.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

ERIC TANDY VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(d), (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(b), (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(a)(3), (4) breach of express written warranty, (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, (6) fraud by omission, and (7) negligent repair. Plaintiff’s causes of action arise from her purchase of a 2014 Ford Escape (Vehicle).

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

MARCELLA ANDERSON V. KENNETH GOLDBERG, DMD

Breach of Warranty CACI number 1231 sets forth the elements for a products liability claim based on the implied warranty of merchantability. The elements include a showing that “at the time of purchase, [Coastal Oral] was in the business of selling these goods [or by [its] occupation held [itself] out as having special knowledge or skill regarding these goods].” (CACI No. 1231.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

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

Last, Defendant on reply asserts that Plaintiff’s eighth cause of action fails to state sufficient facts by addressing the implied warranty of merchantability. As this is not the claim of the eighth cause of action, the court does not sustain demurrer on these grounds. Based on the foregoing, Defendant O’Gara’s demurrer 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 are each overruled.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

WAGNER VS MERCEDES BENZ USA

Damages for breach of an implied warranty is governed by Civil Code section 1791.1, subdivision (d) which provides, "Any buyer of consumer goods injured by a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability ... has the remedies provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 2601) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2701) of Division 2 of the [California Uniform] Commercial Code, and, in any action brought under such provisions, Section 1794 of this chapter shall apply."

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ALEXANDER NABIL BASSILY, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

(“Kia”) brings this demurrer to the third (violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3)), fifth (breach of the implied warranty of merchantability), sixth (fraud by omission), and seventh (violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act) causes of action of the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiffs Alexander Nabil Bassily and Nabil Bassily Sr. (jointly, “Plaintiffs”). Kia also moves to strike allegations relating to punitive damages from the FAC. Plaintiffs oppose.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

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

In support of Defendant’s demurrer on both grounds, it first argues Plaintiffs’ second cause of action is improper because they combine two distinct claims therein, namely breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and breach of a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. In opposition, Plaintiffs state they are solely alleging breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and have adequately stated such a claim.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

EVA E HERNANDEZ VS SUPER CALIDAD AUTO SALES, INC., ET AL.

., negligent misrepresentation, violation of Civil Code section 1632, implied warranty of merchantability, and claim against surety against Defendants Super Calidad Auto Sales, Inc. (“Super Calidad”), Alaska USA Federal Credit Union (“Alaska”), and Washington International Insurance Company (“Washington”). On January 10, 2020, Alaska filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint against Super Calidad. On February 6, 2020, Washington was dismissed from the action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOSE PICENO VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

warranty of merchantability when it sold to plaintiff a vehicle that contains known defects at the time of sale.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

MICHAEL VALENZUELA VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

The documents may also lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability by selling to Plaintiff a vehicle a known defect. For example, in Donlen v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

KEYVAN YOUSEFI VS TESLA INC. FKA TESLA MOTORS INC.

procedural history Yousefi filed the Complaint on January 7, 2020, alleging five causes of action: Violation of Civil Code §1793.2(d) Violation of Civil Code §1793.2(b) Violation of Civil Code §1793.2(a)(3) Violation of Civil Code §§1791.2(a); 1794(c) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability Tesla filed the present Motion to Compel Arbitration on February 27, 2020. Yousefi filed an Opposition on March 30, 2020. Tesla filed a Reply on June 24, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

ANGELES MEJIA VS FCA US LLC

The documents may also lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability by selling to Plaintiff a vehicle with a known defect. For example, in Donlen v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

NICHOLAS FRANCO VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

Plaintiff is asserting causes of action for (1) violation of Civil Code §1793.2(d), (2) violation of Civil Code §1793.2(b), (3) violation of Civil Code §1793.2(a)(3), (4) breach of express warranty under Civil Code §§1791.2, 1794, and (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Civil Code §§1791.1, 1794. In the motion, plaintiff explains that he presented the subject vehicle on at least six occasions with concerns relating to the severe engine and transmission defects.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 31     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.