Products Liability – Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Useful Resources for Products Liability – Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Recent Rulings on Products Liability – Implied Warranty of Merchantability

26-50 of 1041 results

MELISSA DLIN MOTTOLA VS TESLA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

The complaint, filed January 16, 2020, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act; and (2) breach of the express warranty under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. B. Relevant Background On June 15, 2020, Defendant Tesla, Inc. filed an ex parte application for an order staying the instant case pending the resolution of its motion to compel binding arbitration. The Court by Judge Curtis A.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HENRY VALDIVIA VS C.H.I. AUTOMART, INC., ET AL.

.; (2) Breach of Express Warranty—Civil Code § 1794; (3) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability—Civil Code § 1794; (4) Failure to Commence Repairs Within a Reasonable Time and To Complete Them Within 30 Days—Civil Code § 1793.2(b); (5) Failure to Promptly Repurchase Product; (6) Fraud And Deceit; (7) Negligent Misrepresentation; (8) Violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. As against moving Defendant C.H.I.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JOSEPH J. PITT, JR. VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

Plaintiff filed a complaint against General Motors, LLC on May 13, 2020 asserting causes of action for (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 Written Warranty Civil Code Section 1791.2 Subdivision (a); Section 1794; and (5) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability Civil Code Section 1791.1; Section 1794.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2020

CATHERINE PETERSEN VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s complaint arises from an alleged defective 2017 Chrysler Pacifica (the “Subject Vehicle”), 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 written warranty; (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (6) fraud by omission.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

FRANCISCO BAEZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

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

    Dec 11, 2020

ANDRES SOLANO-POLANCO VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

This is a Lemon Law action, and the Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, (2) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, and (3) fraudulent inducement – concealment. GM demurs to each of the causes of action on the ground that each cause of action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. GM also moves to strike allegations of punitive damages from the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

HOLMES-ANDERSON VS. KIA MOTOR AMERICA

Defendant cites no authority which requires further identification of the repair facility, literature or replacement parts at issue. 5th COA: The Demurrer to the Fifth COA (Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability) is SUSTAINED with leave to amend, on the basis the claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations and Plaintiffs have insufficiently alleged tolling.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

HOLMES-ANDERSON VS. KIA MOTOR AMERICA

Defendant cites no authority which requires further identification of the repair facility, literature or replacement parts at issue. 5th COA: The Demurrer to the Fifth COA (Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability) is SUSTAINED with leave to amend, on the basis the claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations and Plaintiffs have insufficiently alleged tolling.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

PETER VOGEL, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

On August 10, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”) alleging (1) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d); (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b); (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3); (4) breach of express written warranty; (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (6) fraudulent inducement – concealment; and (7) negligent repair.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

LORI ANN TERPENING VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

(a); § 1794); and Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civ. Code § 1791.1; § 1794; § 1795.5). On July 30, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff with production of documents. Legal Standard Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.¿(Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ALLEN BENNETT, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiffs filed the FAC on May 29, 2020, alleging seven causes of action for (1) violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(d) (“the Song-Beverly Act”), (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 the implied warranty of merchantability, (6) fraudulent inducement – concealment, and (7) negligent repair.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

RAFAEL VICENTE VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

On May 30, 2019, Plaintiff Rafael Vicente commenced this lemon law action against Defendant General Motors, LLC for (1) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d); (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b); (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3); (4) breach of express written warranty; (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (6) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

DAVID SULLIVAN VS ATHENIAN PLACE, INC., ET AL.

“Unlike express warranties, which are basically contractual in nature, the implied warranty of merchantability arises by operation of law. It does not ‘impose a general requirement that goods precisely fulfill the expectation of the buyer. Instead, it provides for a minimum level of quality.”’ (American Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1295-1296.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

ANGEL CABRAL VS HASTINGS RANCH INVESTMENT CO

The papers discuss three potential warranty-based theories of liability: breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness, and breach of express warranty. Plaintiff Angel Cabral is required to specify each theory of liability in separate causes of action. (Campbell v. Rayburn (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 232, 235.) Further, in each of the potential breach of warranty causes of action, privity between plaintiff Angel Cabral and defendant Ortiz is required. (U.S.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Plaintiff states that their claim is for the breach of implied warranty of merchantability. A merchant warrants goods sold are merchantable by operation of law. (Civ. Code, § 1791.1(b).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

ANDRES ASCENCIO, ET AL. VS FCA US LLC, ET AL.

On June 5, 2019, Plaintiffs Andres Ascencio and Luis Saul Ascencio commenced this lemon law action against Defendants FCA US LLC and Van Nuys Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram for (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 1739.2; (4) breach of express written warranty; (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (6) negligent repair.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LOHMANN VS. SAFEWAY INC., ET A

“On the matter of liability under a breach of warranty theory, with certain exceptions not applicable here, privity between the plaintiffs and defendants remains a requirement for actions based upon the implied warranty of merchantability [citations].” (Rodrigues v. Campbell Industries (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 494, 500.) Plaintiffs are unable to show privity with Gatekeeper and therefore lack standing.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

ERICA G LOPEZ VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

On 12/19/18, Plaintiff filed her complaint which contains causes of action for: (1) Violation of CC 1793.2(d); (2) Violation of CC 1793.2(b); (3) Violation of CC 1793.2(a)(3); (4) Breach of Express Written Warranty – CC 1791.2(a), CC 1794 and (5) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability – CC 1791.1, CC 1794. On 1/7/20, Defendant made a CCP 998 Offer to Plaintiff wherein Defendant offered Plaintiff $52,500.00 in exchange for a dismissal of this action with prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

DRAPER VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

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

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ALLEN BENNETT, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiffs filed the FAC on May 29, 2020, alleging seven causes of action for (1) violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(d) (“the Song-Beverly Act”), (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 the implied warranty of merchantability, (6) fraudulent inducement – concealment, and (7) negligent repair.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

BAHRAM JARIDIAN VS SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

On June 26, 2020 Plaintiff Bahram Jaridian commenced this lemon law action and on September 23, 2020 filed his first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Subaru of America, Inc. and Galpin Subaru for (1) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (D); (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (B); (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (A)(3); (4) breach of express written warranty; (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (6) fraud; and (7) negligent

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

ARA INEZIAN VS COM TECH21/AEON, AN ENTITY OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Breach of Express Contract; Breach of Implied Contract; Negligence; and Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability. Defendants ComTech 21and AEON, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendants”) move for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One); Special Interrogatories (Set One); and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One).

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SAUL DOMINGUEZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

The Court of Appeal concluded that the provision of the Song-Beverly Act defining the duration of the implied warranty of merchantability does not bar an action for breach of that warranty when the action is based upon a latent condition not discovered by the consumer and reported to the seller within the duration period. (Id. at p. 1311.) Here, Plaintiff purchased the Subject Vehicle on May 26, 2013. (Compl., ¶ 69.) Plaintiff alleges that he could not have discovered the CVT defects prior to May 1, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CGA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. V. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 117 [distinguishing express warranties, which are contractual in nature from the implied warranty of merchantability which “arises by operation of law”].) Furthermore, under the Song-Beverly Act, an “ ‘[e]xpress warranty’ means: [¶] (1) A written statement ….” (Cal. Civ. Code, § 1791.2, subd. (a)(1).) Here, plaintiff’s claim is at least in part predicated on an express warranty (Comp., ¶7), which is contractual in nature. (Hauter v. Zogarts, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 117.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

NEIL YESCHIN VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Fifth Cause of Action: Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability Pursuant to Civ.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 42     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.