Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, “every sale of consumer goods that are sold at retail in this state shall be accompanied by the manufacturer’s and the retail seller’s implied warranty that the goods are merchantable. The retail seller shall have a right of indemnity against the manufacturer in the amount of any liability under this section.” (Civil Code § 1792.)
§ 1791.1 provides, in relevant part, that:
The duration of the implied warranty or merchantability and where present the implied warranty of fitness shall be coextensive in duration with an express warranty which accompanies the consumer goods, provided the duration of the express warranty if reasonable; but in no event shall such implied warranty have a duration of less than 60 days nor more than one year following the sale of new consumer goods to a retail buyer.”
“Consumer goods” means “any new product or part thereof that is used, bought, or leased for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, except for clothing and consumables. ‘Consumer goods’ shall include new and used assistive devices sold at retail.” (Civil Code § 1791(a).)
“The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale.” (See Moore v. Hubbard & Johnson [*1305] Lumber Co. (1957) 149 Cal. App. 2d 236, 241; Brittalia Ventures v. Stuke Nursery Co., Inc. (2007) 153 Cal. App. 4th 17, 24; Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. NAK Sealing Technologies Corp. (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 937, 950–952.) Indeed, “[u]ndisclosed latent defects... are the very evil that the implied warranty of merchantability was designed to remedy.” (Willis Mining, Inc. v. Noggle (1998) 235 Ga. App. 747, 749.) 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. (Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 1297, 1304-05.) “Thus, although a defect may not be discovered for months or years after a sale, merchantability is evaluated as if the defect were known.” Mexia, supra, 174 Cal. App. 4th at 1305.
“The Song-Beverly Act does not include its own statute of limitations.” (Id. at 1305 citing Krieger, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d at 213,.) “California courts have held that the statute of limitations for an action for breach of warranty under the Song-Beverly Act is governed by the same statute that governs the statute of limitations for warranties arising under the Uniform Commercial Code: § 2725 of the Uniform Commercial Code.” (Id. citing Krieger, supra, at p. 215, 285 Cal.Rptr. 717; Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal. App. 4th 112, 132; Carrau v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co. (2001) 93 Cal. App. 4th 281, 297.) Under this statute:
(Mexia, supra, 174 Cal. App. 4th at 1306 citing U.Com.Code, § 2725(1), (2).)
In Mexia, appellants conceded and the court agreed that “the statute of limitations for an action for breach of warranty under the Song-Beverly Act is four years pursuant to § 2725 of the Uniform Commercial Code.” (Id. citing Krieger, supra, 234 Cal. App. 3d at 215; Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at p. 132, 41 Cal. Rptr. 2d 295.) “Under that statute, a cause of action for breach of warranty accrues, at the earliest, upon tender of delivery.” Id. citing U.Com.Code, Sec. 2725(2).)
As set forth in the Courts April 26, 2022 minute order, t he Court set a briefing schedule for the parties to address the following two issues affecting the special verdict form: (1) Is MAI subject to the implied warranty of merchantability? If so, upon what basis. (2) Assuming that MAI is subject to the implied warranty of merchantability, what evidence is there of a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability?
ALEXANDER WEINBERGER VS MCLAREN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV07915
Jun 22, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
FCS055925 Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint TENTATIVE RULING Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. demurs to the fifth cause of action, for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, within Plaintiffs CORNELL LITTLEJOHN, PAMELA LITTLEJOHN, and LINDSAY LITTLEJOHN’s second amended complaint (“2AC”) against it.
FCS055925 - LITTLEJOHN, CORNELL; ET AL V KIA MOTORS (DMS)
FCS055925
Jan 07, 2023
Solano County, CA
FCS055925 Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint TENTATIVE RULING Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. demurs to the fifth cause of action, for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, within Plaintiffs CORNELL LITTLEJOHN, PAMELA LITTLEJOHN, and LINDSAY LITTLEJOHN’s second amended complaint (“2AC”) against it.
FCS055925 - LITTLEJOHN, CORNELL; ET AL V KIA MOTORS (DMS)
FCS055925
Jan 08, 2023
Solano County, CA
FCS055925 Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint TENTATIVE RULING Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. demurs to the fifth cause of action, for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, within Plaintiffs CORNELL LITTLEJOHN, PAMELA LITTLEJOHN, and LINDSAY LITTLEJOHN’s second amended complaint (“2AC”) against it.
FCS055925 - LITTLEJOHN, CORNELL; ET AL V KIA MOTORS (DMS)
FCS055925
Jan 10, 2023
Solano County, CA
FCS055925 Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint TENTATIVE RULING Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. demurs to the fifth cause of action, for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, within Plaintiffs CORNELL LITTLEJOHN, PAMELA LITTLEJOHN, and LINDSAY LITTLEJOHN’s second amended complaint (“2AC”) against it.
FCS055925 - LITTLEJOHN, CORNELL; ET AL V KIA MOTORS (DMS)
FCS055925
Jan 06, 2023
Solano County, CA
FCS055925 Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint TENTATIVE RULING Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. demurs to the fifth cause of action, for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, within Plaintiffs CORNELL LITTLEJOHN, PAMELA LITTLEJOHN, and LINDSAY LITTLEJOHN’s second amended complaint (“2AC”) against it.
FCS055925 - LITTLEJOHN, CORNELL; ET AL V KIA MOTORS (DMS)
FCS055925
Jan 09, 2023
Solano County, CA
FCS055925 Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint TENTATIVE RULING Defendant KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. demurs to the fifth cause of action, for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, within Plaintiffs CORNELL LITTLEJOHN, PAMELA LITTLEJOHN, and LINDSAY LITTLEJOHN’s second amended complaint (“2AC”) against it.
FCS055925 - LITTLEJOHN, CORNELL; ET AL V KIA MOTORS (DMS)
FCS055925
Jan 05, 2023
Solano County, CA
Accordingly, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability occurred at the time of delivery. Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle on February 19, 2010. (Deft. SSUMF 1.) The action was not filed until October 28, 2016, more than four years after the sale. Pursuant to Commercial Code section 2725, plaintiff’s claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, unless an exception applies.
KING, ANNA P. VS. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA
S-CV-0038637
Jan 15, 2019
Placer County, CA
Contract
Breach
As was done on the prior demurrer order, the second cause of action will be subdivided into separate claims of implied warranty of fitness and implied warranty of merchantability. The implied warranty of fitness claim fails because a demurrer to that claim was previously sustained without leave to amend and nothing has changed that requires or supports a different result. The implied warranty of merchantability claim fails because Mr.
JEFFREY SUTTON VS. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA ET AL
CGC17557703
Dec 08, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
Neither Civil Code §§ 1791.1 or 1792 utilize the phrase “new motor vehicle;” thus, whether an implied warranty of merchantability or fitness accompanies the sale of a product depends upon whether the product is a consumer good.
RUTH CHIRON VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
18PSCV00128
Jul 29, 2019
Gloria White-Brown
Los Angeles County, CA
As to the JOP regarding the Second Cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, “the duration provision provides, in essence, that the duration of the implied warranty of merchantability shall be the same as the duration of any reasonable express warranty that accompanies the product, but in no event shorter than 60 days or longer than one year. (Civ. Code, § 1791.1, subd. (c).) Therefore the one-year implied warranty period expired 9/17/16, one year after the date of purchase.
BUSTOS V FORD MOTOR CO.
16CV02957
Nov 15, 2018
Santa Cruz County, CA
(As indicated above, the discovery rule does not apply to claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.)
JACQUELINE FRIAS VS KIA AMERICA, INC
22STCV17112
Aug 31, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
In fact, two of the cases cited in support of the demurrer involved summary judgment rulings on claims for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. See, e.g., Avedisian v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (C.D. 2014) 43 F.
KHAVARIAN VS JEROME'S FURNITURE WAREHOUSE [EFILE]
37-2018-00065353-CU-BT-CTL
Jun 11, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
Civil Code section 1795.5 provides that the implied warranty of merchantability applies to the sale of used goods. (Civ. Code., § 1795.5(c).) Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the elements of a cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Defendant’s demurer to the fifth cause of action is overruled. Plaintiffs to give notice.
VICTOR PARTAKER VS. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA
30-2018-01033589-CU-PL-CJC
Jun 24, 2019
Orange County, CA
Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civil Code 1791.1, 1794, 1795.5) 5. Fraudulent Inducement Concealment 6. Negligent Repair ( not alleged against Ford Motor Company ) RULING : The demurrer is placed off calendar.
MAXIMILIAN I WEBB VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.
23CHCV02468
Feb 02, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
‘When there has been a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, a buyer “may bring an action for the recovery of damages and other legal and equitable relief.”’” (Ibid.) “Since cars are designed to provide transportation, the implied warranty of merchantability is simply a guarantee that they will operate in a ‘safe condition’ and ‘substantially free of defects.’ Thus, ‘where a car can provide safe, reliable transportation, it is generally considered merchantable.’”
JACQUEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
CVPS2202991
Jun 06, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Here the alleged wrongdoing is a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability imposed by the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.).
COREEN LOCKETT VS NEXT CAR INC., ET AL.
22STCV06283
Oct 26, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court sustained Kias demurrer to the cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability in Friass First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. Thus, it was not improper to Frias to try to plead around the statute of limitations and include the cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability in her Second Amended Complaint.
JACQUELINE FRIAS VS KIA AMERICA, INC
22STCV17112
Apr 27, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On 2/3/23, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant) and Does 1-10 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 the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civil Code 1791.1, 1794, 1795.5) and (5) Fraudulent Inducement Concealment.
DAVID WALLENSTEIN VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC.
23CHCV00326
Jun 29, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The implied warranty of merchantability is breached if a good is not fit for its ordinary purpose, is not in a safe condition, or is not substantially free of defects.(Id. at 1303; Isip v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 19, 26- 27.)
FCS058149
Feb 17, 2023
Solano County, CA
Defendant car seller demurred, and the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. ( Id. ) As to Plaintiff’s claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, the Court of Appeal found that Plaintiff failed to allege a cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability because she did not allege that the safety switch in her vehicle was defective or that her use of the vehicle was restricted.
SARAH EMILY LIKES VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.
20STCV20775
May 14, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability To state a claim for Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Plaintiff must allege facts showing that “the product did not possess even the most basic degree of fitness for ordinary use.” (Mocek v. Alfa Leisure, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 402, 406) Plaintiff merely states that the catamaran was sold “with numerous and serious defects.” (Paragraph 67) Plaintiff offers facts in Opposition that do not appear in the Complaint.
DAVID KIM VS NAOS YACHTS INC ET AL
NC061439
Jan 25, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
The claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability is untimely. The statute of limitations for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability is four years. That limitations period begins to run “when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party’s lack of knowledge of the breach.” (Cal. Com. Code, § 2725, subd. (2). (See Cardinal Health 301, Inc. v. Tyco Electronics Corp.
JERRY D. ASHCRAFT, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV14902
Sep 28, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant car seller demurred, and the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. ( Id. ) As to Plaintiff’s claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, the Court of Appeal found that Plaintiff failed to allege a cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability because she did not allege that the safety switch in her vehicle was defective or that her use of the vehicle was restricted.
SARAH EMILY LIKES VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.
20STCV20775
Apr 14, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff offers no evidence in opposition that creates a triable issue of material fact regarding the identity of interests shared by Defendant and AT&T, or the application of the same implied warranty of merchantability to both Defendant and AT&T. Accordingly, Plaintiff is bound in this case by the doctrine of res judicata as to the determination made in binding arbitration that the physical damage to the subject phone voided any implied warranty of merchantability claim.
9CG1554
Dec 08, 2016
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
The first cause of action is for violation of the implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Act. (1AC, ¶¶ 17, 18.)
COREEN LOCKETT VS NEXT CAR INC., ET AL.
22STCV06283
Jul 13, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
At the time of MIDOs sale and delivery of the GOODS, the GOODS were accompanied by the implied warranty of merchantability that; and the GOODS would conform to the promises or affirmation of fact made by MIDO. Response: Objection. Vague and ambiguous as to the term implied warranty of merchantability. 15. The implied warranty of merchantability of the GOODS has been breached. Response: Objection. Vague and ambiguous as to the term implied warranty of merchantability. 16.
KOREA TRADE INSURANCE CORPORATION, ASSIGNEE TO MIDO TRADE CO., LTD. VS MIX & MATCH APPAREL, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
22GDCV00336
Dec 15, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On January 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act -- Breach of Express Warranty, and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act -- Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability. Defendant answered the complaint on March 1, 2019. RULING : Moot/Off-Calendar. Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement on December 23, 2020. The motion is therefore moot and off-calendar. Plaintiff to give notice. Dept.
WUENDI CASTELLANOS VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.
19CHCV00040
Jan 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
On June 4, 2020, Defendant answered and filed a cross-complaint for Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Declaratory Relief, Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose, and Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage.
VAV PLASTICS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS ARMINAK SOLUTIONS DBA KBL COSMETICS, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
21CHCV00111
Aug 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Collections
Collections
Plaintiff contends that bonded leather recliners sold by defendant "were unmerchantable furniture products" which breached the implied warranty of merchantability. He seeks damages, injunctive relief and other remedies. The complaint was filed in late 2018. Defendant sought and obtained several extensions of time to file a responsive pleading. ROA 9. Defendant has now demurred and the hearing is set for June 21. ROA 13-16.
KHAVARIAN VS JEROME'S FURNITURE WAREHOUSE [EFILE]
37-2018-00065353-CU-BT-CTL
Apr 23, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
The motion is denied as to the causes of action for strict liability and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. In Mexicali Rose v. Sup. Crt. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 617, 630, fn. 5, the court explains that the term "natural" refers to bones and other substances natural to the product. It does not encompass substances such as mold, bacteria or other substances not natural to the preparation of the product served.
FRANK PIETRONIGRO VS. WAREHOUSE FISH COMPANY INC. ET AL
CGC16555815
Feb 23, 2018
San Francisco County, CA
This minimum guarantee in the implied warranty of merchantability protects not only the vehicle purchaser, but other motorists, passengers, pedestrians, and the public generally. ( Brand v. Hyundai Motor America (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1547.) In Brand , the Court of Appeal found that a vehicle sunroof that opens and closes on its own constitutes a sufficiently substantial safety hazard as could establish a claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability. ( Id. at 1547.)
DANIELLE ARIOLA VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV17576
Dec 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
As privity is not required, the Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to establish a cause of action against Defendant Tustin Toyota for the breach of implied warranty of merchantability. Accordingly, the Court overrules Defendant’s demurrer as it pertains to plaintiff’s claim of breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
MARC GOLD VS TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., ET AL.
21STCV00905
Jun 28, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Given the foregoing, we are led to conclude that Civil Code section 1791.1 controls the length of the implied warranty of merchantability under Magnuson-Moss.
JEROME CHRISTENSEN VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
BC655708
Aug 09, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Because the sale of the used consumer good was accompanied by an express warranty, the implied warranty of merchantability shall be coextensive in duration with an express warranty which accompanies the consumer goods. ( Civ. Code § 1795.5.) This implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale. ( Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1304.)
DANIELLE ARIOLA VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV17576
Nov 01, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
(e), (j), (l) [defining retailer, distributor, and manufacturer], 1791.2 [defining “express warranty”], 1791.1 [defining implied warranty of merchantability], 1792 [manufacturer’s and retailer’s implied warranty of merchantability], 1792.1 [implied warranty of fitness by manufacturer], 1792.2 [implied warranty of fitness by retailer or distributor].) CASWC’s evidence shows plaintiff Tabitha M.
LYON VS. FCA US, LLC
30-2016-00889760-CU-BC-CJC
Mar 08, 2018
Orange County, CA
As to the JOP regarding the Second Cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, “the duration provision provides, in essence, that the duration of the implied warranty of merchantability shall be the same as the duration of any reasonable express warranty that accompanies the product, but in no event shorter than 60 days or longer than one year. (Civ. Code, § 1791.1, subd. (c).)
BUSTOS V FORD MOTOR CO.
16CV02957
Oct 25, 2018
Santa Cruz County, CA
.; (3) Negligent Misrepresentation; (4) Violation of Civil Code §1632; (5) Implied Warranty of Merchantability; and (6) Claim against Surety.
MARIVEL JUAREZ-RAMIREZ VS SOUTHCOAST AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.
VC066865
Apr 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The Demurrer brought based on the statute of limitations is OVERRULED as to all but the Sixth Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability.
YUN VS. YIM
30-2019-01042740-CU-BC-CJC
Jul 29, 2019
Orange County, CA
IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY — FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Worthington argues that the Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability is time-barred. (Demurrer at pp. 3–5.) “An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued.” (Com. Code § 2725, subd. (1).)
BRENDA ROBERSON VS FCA US LLC ET AL
BC704452
Nov 07, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
MIGUEL ANGEL OLVERA, ET AL. V. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC.
19CV359691
Jul 02, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
Based on Plaintiff’s argument that the hard substance was not natural to the pizza, the court finds there is a reasonable possibility Plaintiff can amend the pleadings to clarify whether the substance was foreign, such that the implied warranty of merchantability and strict liability claims would be properly stated. Defendant’s demurrer is sustained to the second cause of action for implied warranty of merchantability and third cause of action for strict liability with leave to amend.
MORRIS BROWN VS EATALIAN CAFE
20STCV09318
Aug 27, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Code §§ 1791.1; 1794; 1795.5 – Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Song-Beverly). Statute of Limitations Causes of Action One through Five Defendant demurs to the first through fourth causes of action alleged under the Song-Beverly Act, and the fifth cause of action of Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability, on grounds each are barred by the statute of limitations in California Com. Code § 2725(1).
ISIDRO OCAMPO NUNO VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.
20STCV29151
Mar 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff alleges that she purchased a 2016 Acura TLX on August 30, 2019, from Sonic and asserts causes of action for: (1) Breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, (2) Breach of the express warranty under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, (3) Breach of the express warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and (4) Breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
BERENICE MONTES VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV46203
Apr 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Carmax Auto Superstores California (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1234, 1246-47 [“Stating a complete cause of action for a breach of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act’s implied warranty of merchantability … requires the plaintiff to allege facts establishing the generic elements of causation and harm …. [which] are addressed by the statutory provisions that define the relief available for a breach of the implied warranty”].)
WALSH VS THE CHOPPER GALLERY, INC
MCC2001381
Jan 13, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Second Cause of Action, Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability: OVERRULED Defendants argue that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. In this matter the duration of the implied warranty of merchantability is one year. (Civ. Code, § 1791.1 (c).) It is undisputed that there is a four year statute of limitations for an implied warranty claim. (Comm. Code, § 2725.)
(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)
29STCV10486
Oct 14, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court intends to GRANT the motion as to Count 2 (implied warranty of merchantability) without leave to amend. The Court finds that the implied warranty of merchantability is not a warranty that explicitly extends to future performance of goods here. "Because an implied warranty is one that arises by operation of law rather than by an express agreement of the parties, courts have consistently held it is not a warranty that 'explicitly extends to future performance of the goods...'"
CHERYL M EARHART VS. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC
56-2018-00516207-CU-BC-VTA
Feb 26, 2021
Ventura County, CA
Indeed, “[u]ndisclosed latent defects ... are the very evil that the implied warranty of merchantability was designed to remedy.” (Willis Mining, Inc. v. Noggle (1998) 235 Ga.App. 747, 749 [509 S.E.2d 731].) 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 .
CHRISTINE DIEP VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
20STCV36423
Jan 06, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
The Demurrer filed by Defendant Canon Solutions, America, Inc. is overruled as to the 1st Cause of Action (Breach of Contract), the 2nd Cause of Action (Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability) and the 3rd Cause of Action (Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness). The Demurrer is sustained with 10 days leave to amend as to the 4th Cause of Action (Fraud -- Intentional Misrepresentation) and the 5th Cause of Action (Fraud -- Negligent Misrepresentation).
ESCANDARI LAW FIRM INC. VS. CANON U.S.A.,INC. ET. AL.
SC122452
Jan 25, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
If a component part manufacturer issues an express warranty, it cannot disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability. (Mega RV Corp. v. HWH Corp. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1335.) The implied warranty of merchantability is limited to the scope of the part provided by the component part manufacturer. (Id.)
PHILLIPS VS POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC
RG19038018
Feb 22, 2024
Alameda County, CA
Discussion Plaintiff moves for adjudication on the its second cause of action for a breach of implied warranty of merchantability on the grounds that FMG breached the implied warranty as to her vehicle. Civ.
ROSA MAY VS FIRST MOTOR GROUP OF ENCINO LLC ET AL
BC687978
Aug 17, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Volvo Penta challenges the addition of four causes of action in the Third Amended Complaint: 9th cause of action for strict product liability; 10th cause of action for express warranty; 11th cause of action for implied warranty of merchantability and 12th cause of action for implied warranty of merchantability. The Third Amended Complaint was filed pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, not after a Demurrer was sustained with leave to amend.
PLUM VS ALBEE
37-2017-00049397-CU-BT-CTL
Oct 18, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
The fifth cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff fails to establish tolling under delayed discovery, the class action rule or fraudulent concealment. Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for Fraudulent Concealment under the sixth cause of action; Plaintiff has not alleged any relationship or transaction with Kia that gives rise to a duty to disclose.
LUNA VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.
RIC2000768
Mar 09, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Second Cause of Action - Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability Plaintiff alleges problems affecting the Vehicle, including defects causing the cooling system to fail and cruise control issues. These are more than sufficient to plead a claim for breach of implied warranty. “The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale.” ( Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1304–05.)
ADAN AGRIPINO REYES VS CHAMPION DODGE LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED COMPANY, ET AL.
20STCV21213
Jul 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Second Cause of Action - Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability Plaintiff alleges problems affecting the Vehicle, including defects causing the cooling system to fail and cruise control issues. These are more than sufficient to plead a claim for breach of implied warranty. “The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale.” ( Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1304–05.)
ADAN AGRIPINO REYES VS CHAMPION DODGE LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED COMPANY, ET AL.
20STCV21213
Jul 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
It also provides for an implied warranty of merchantability. (§§1791.1(c), 1792.) The same protections generally apply to sale of used goods accompanied by an express warranty, except that the distributor or retail seller is bound, as opposed to the manufacturer, and the duration of the implied warranty of merchantability is much shorter. (§1795.5.).” Kiluk v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2019) 43 Cal. App. 5th 334, 336.
MARIA GOMEZ VS HYUANDI MOTOR AMERICA
19TRCV00679
Sep 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND: On September 27, 2019, Plaintiffs Adolfo Miranda, Jr. and Adolfo Miranda, Sr. commenced this lemon law action against Defendant General Motors, LLC 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) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; and (7) fraud by omission.
ADOLFO MIRANDA, JR. , ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
19STCV34583
Feb 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
(FKA KIA MOTORS TREPTOW vs KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.)’S NOTICE OF CVPS2104074 AMERICA, INC., A DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CALIFORNIA CORPORATION THE THIRD AND FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT by KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION Tentative Ruling: The defendant Kia of America’s demurrer to the second cause of action for breach of implied warranty of merchantability is overruled. Defendant to answer within 20 days.
TREPTOW VS KIA AMERICA INC.
CVPS2104074
Nov 17, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Background On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff Aldo Pizano filed a complaint against Defendant Ford Motor Company and Does 1 through 20, inclusive for (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; and (2) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. On March 24, 2023, Defendant filed this instant motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication. On May 30, 2023, Plaintiff opposed.
ALDO PIZANO VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
22NWCV00480
Jun 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Third Cause of Action for Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability: “The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act provides a right of action for a buyer to recover damages and other relief when there has been a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.” Isip v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 19, 25.
RITTER VS ECLIPSE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, INC.
CVRI2103777
Oct 25, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Mexia states, “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.”
PETERSEN V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.
30-2019-01109397
Mar 16, 2021
Orange County, CA
Civil Code section 1793.22(e)(1) does not concern a breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and is therefore, inapplicable. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs failed to plead facts specific to the defects in Plaintiffs’ vehicle, but cites to no authority providing that a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability requires a plaintiff to plead such facts. In any event, the Complaint alleges defects specific to Plaintiffs’ vehicles, namely defects with the 2.4L engine.
CEVALLOS VS. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC
30-2019-01098175
Jan 23, 2020
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Act, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and fraud.
CARLOS GOMEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.
23NWCV00998
Jul 19, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced the instant action on 2/27/17 against defendants for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (3) breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
GRAND PACIFIC 7-28 LLC VS YALE/CHASE EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES
BC651141
Nov 16, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
The operative Second Amended Complaint alleges (1) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, (2) warranty of fitness, (3) negligent misrepresentation, (4) fraudulent misrepresentation, and (5) unfair competition. On July 26, 2022, Defendant A&B Ingredients and third-party deponent ABIC International Consultants, Inc.
LENNY & LARRY, LLC VS A & B INGREDIENTS, INC.
19STCV37687
Aug 22, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The statute of limitations for a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Civil Code §1791.1 is also governed by Commercial Code §2725(2). See Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.Ap.4th 1297, 1306. There is some level of difficulty in determining from the face of the pleading when Plaintiff’s claims would have accrued.
RICHARD VS. FCA US, LLC
30-2018-01017584-CU-BC-CJC
Apr 04, 2019
Orange County, CA
Warranty of Merchantability; Strict Liabiity.
JENNIFER SEO, ET AL. VS TESLA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION
20STCV33259
Feb 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
The first cause of action by Hiles for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song- Beverly Warranty Act is insufficiently pleaded as it does not state how, if at all, Hiles was damaged, what if any defect manifested while he owned the vehicle, why he is entitled to any remedy for breach of warranty.
FONSECA VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC
PSC1807741
Jun 15, 2021
Riverside County, CA
There is no basis in the causes of action based on strict liability, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress to recover punitive and exemplarty damages or attorneys fees.
KARLA DAVILA VS. MCDONALDS CORPORATION
56-2012-00412551-CU-PL-VTA
May 29, 2012
Ventura County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale. . . . Indeed, “[u]ndisclosed latent defects ... are the very evil that the implied warranty of merchantability was designed to remedy.” . . . 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, bold emphasis and underlining added.)
ROSA E. MENENDEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, ET AL.
21STCV16338
Sep 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Paragraph 284 essentially states the legal elements for an implied warranty of merchantability and paragraph 285 alleges the implied warranty has been breached. Defendant argues the claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability is time-barred. The duration of an implied warranty is coextensive with the express warranty "but in no event shall such implied warranty have a duration of less than 60 days nor more than one year following the sale of new consumer goods to a retail buyer."
MELTON VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
37-2017-00018831-CU-BC-CTL
Oct 19, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
Summary adjudication is granted as to the implied warranty of merchantability claim alleged in the first cause of action and adjudication is granted as to the negligent repair claim raised in the third cause of action; both are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Summary adjudication is denied as to the express warranty claim alleged in the first cause of action because an arguably covered repair occurred on September 7, 2016, which is within four years of the filing of the present complaint.
BARBUTI VS MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC
PSC2003841
May 11, 2022
Riverside County, CA
As Defendant correctly states, a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability could occur anytime within its duration. Defendant contends that the defect must not only occur, but be discovered within a year of the purchase in order to maintain a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Defendant bases this contention on a statement by the Court of Appeal in Jones v. Credit Auto Center, Inc.
ESTRELLA G. RIVERA VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC
20STCV19959
Dec 01, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Thus, the earliest date the implied warranty of merchantability regarding Mexia's boat could have accrued was the date Mexia purchased it—April 12, 2003. n7 Because he filed this action three years seven months after that date, he did so within the four-year limitations period. Therefore, Mexia's action is not barred by a statute of limitations. Mexia, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at 1306.
SAYRA ASRAR, ET AL. VS KIA MOTOR AMERICA, INC.
18STCV00797
Dec 24, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale. . . . Indeed, “[u]ndisclosed latent defects ... are the very evil that the implied warranty of merchantability was designed to remedy.” . . . 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 (bold emphasis and underlining added).)
IGAL KAHENASSA VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, ET AL.
19STCV29944
Jun 23, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability LRJ Automotive and JLRNA both assert that even if Plaintiffs are in vertical privity with Defendants, LRJ Automotive or JLRNA did not breach any implied warranty of merchantability and as such the third and fourth causes of action in the FAC fail.
MICHAEL FARHAT, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC, ET AL.
19STCV14001
Oct 23, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Coalition argues further that partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be granted on the implied warranty of merchantability claim because there was no substantial or competent evidence to show that the jackets delivered by Coalition breach an implied warranty of merchantability, i.e., they breached an implied warranty, that MBJ took reasonable steps to notify Coalition within a reasonable time that the jackets did not meet the expected quality, that MBJ was damaged, or the amount of damages purportedly
COALITION APPAREL, INC. VS MADE BY JOHNNY GROUP, INC., ET AL.
21STCV06555
Jun 29, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
On review of the Declaration of Joseph Owens, the Court finds that DJO has satisfied its meet and confer obligations. --- Fourth Cause of Action (Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability) – A breach of the implied warranty of merchantability consists in consumer goods not possessing even the most basic degree of fitness for ordinary use, viz., passing without objection in the trade under the sale description, being fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used, being adequately packaged
SHELLY BLAND-REISCH VS RICHARD SAYEGH, A PROFESSIONAL CHIROPRACTIC CORPORATION , ET AL.
19STCV25806
Jan 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Plaintiff does not allege any actual facts demonstrating defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose; she just alleges that defendant breached them because the vehicle was not merchantable and not fit for its ordinary, intended or particular purpose. (Complaint at p. 6, ll. 1-14.; see also American Suzuki Motor Corp. v.
LYON VS. FCA US, LLC
30-2016-00889760-CU-BC-CJC
Feb 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
Defendant’s demurrer to the 5th (breach of implied warranty of merchantability) and 6th (fraud by omission) causes of action of the plaintiff’s second amended complaint. Demurrer sustained with leave to amend. The fifth cause of action for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and sixth cause of action for fraud by omission appear time-barred on their face. (See Cal. U. Com. Code, § 2725 [four year statute of limitations for breach of warranty]; Krieger v.
HERNANDEZ VS. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC
30-2019-01092749-CU-BC-CJC
Aug 28, 2020
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff’s claims for violation of the Song-Beverly Act, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligence, strict liability and Elder Abuse come within the scope of the arbitration clause. The burden shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate that the agreement should not be enforced. In failing to file an opposition, Plaintiff has failed to meet that burden. Accordingly, the motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. The litigation is orders stayed pending arbitration. CCP § 1281.4.
HENRY MARX VS TESLA MOTORS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA
19STCV09194
Jul 12, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability CDRJ argues that Plaintiff has not stated a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability because the mislabeling of the car as new is not a defect and thus the fitness and merchantability of the car are not at issue. The Court agrees. ¿ There exists in every contract for the sale of goods by a merchant a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable.
OLIVIA N. SCOTT VS SANTA MONICA CDJR, INC., ET AL.
23SMCV03054
Oct 20, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Cal., Apr. 13, 2017) 2017 WL 1531192, at *12 [failed to state cause of action for breach the implied warranty of merchantability under Song-Beverly Act where plaintiff alleged the vehicles defective paint job only affected the asthetics of the vehicle reasoning the defect does not render the vehicle inoperable, useless, or unsafe]; see also Barakezyan v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, (C.D. Cal.
22SMCV00518
Nov 29, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability Plaintiffs bring a fourth cause of action for breach of implied warranty of merchantability.
SILVA DONIKIAN, ET AL. VS CONAIR CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION
22STCV11467
Jul 20, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Fourth Cause of Action for Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability Defendants move for summary adjudication on the breached of implied warranty of merchantability claim on the grounds that Plaintiff cannot establish vertical privity between herself and JEEI, the machine’s manufacturer. Defendant submits evidence that Defendant Helen Grace Chocolates, LLC acquired the machine from its predecessor in 2014. (Herzog Decl. Ex. 4, Response to SI 5).
MARTHA MACHADO VS HELEN GRACE CHOCOLATES LLC ET AL
BC644376
Jul 16, 2019
Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka
Los Angeles County, CA
Demurrer Defendant demurs to plaintiffs’ fifth and sixth causes of action for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and fraud by omission. Fifth Cause of Action for Implied Warranty of Merchantability Defendant demurs to plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Act (the Act) on the ground that it is barred by the statute of limitations set forth in Civil Code section 1791.1, subdivision (c) and Commercial Code section 2725.
BERT GONZALES, ET AL. VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA
19STCV40522
Jun 26, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s operative pleadings asserts the following causes of action: (1) general negligence; (2) products liability; (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; and (4) loss of consortium. Defendant NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS, INC.
VICTOR CASTRO ET AL VS NORTH AMERICA STEEL COMPANY
BC589827
Oct 19, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
“The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale.” ( Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1304–05.) A defect need not manifest within the first year of sale to be actionable.
MADISON VANDERBERG VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC
21STCV01757
Jun 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
“The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale.” ( Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1304–05.) A defect need not manifest within the first year of sale to be actionable.
MADISON VANDERBERG VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC
21STCV01757
Jun 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The first is for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Act. Under the Act, a buyer of consumer goods injured by a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, can pursue certain remedies. (Civ. Code, § 1791.1, subd. (d).) Consumer goods are defined as any new product or part thereof that is used, bought, or leased for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. By its plain terms, this cause of action only applies to a new product.
SANDRA AYALA VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION
23STCV09498
Nov 16, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court finds that Hauter—which is a case from the Supreme Court of California—clearly states that privity is required for action based on the implied warranty of merchantability. The Court finds that the All West, Fieldstone, and Osbourne cases are instructive in that privity is required for a cause of action based upon a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
MICHAEL FARHAT, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC, ET AL.
19STCV14001
Feb 26, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Absent such evidence, the court finds Plaintiff fails to establish triable issues of material fact as to the breach of implied warranty of merchantability cause of action. Accordingly, the court summarily adjudicates the fifth cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability in favor of Defendant Kia America, Inc. and against Plaintiff.
MARTINEZ, OSCAR VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC
37-2021-00023651-CU-BC-CTL
Jul 14, 2023
San Diego County, CA
Product Liability – Implied Warranty of Merchantability Under Leber v. DKD of Davis, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 402 the sale of a used, "As IS" vehicle does not trigger an implied warranty of merchantability. It is undisputed that the sale involved a used 2011 Volvo C30 and that the sale was "AS IS" [SSUMF 1, 10]. Plaintiff does not attempt to distinguish Leber.
SADOWSKI VS. VOLVO CAR USA LLC
37-2018-00031698-CU-PA-CTL
Jul 18, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
warranty of merchantability, (5) fraudulent inducement-concealment, and (6) negligent repair.
NIMA NEMATI VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.
22STCV03724
Aug 17, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale. . . . Indeed, “[u]ndisclosed latent defects ... are the very evil that the implied warranty of merchantability was designed to remedy.” . . . 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, bold emphasis and underlining added.)
ROSA M. ACOSTA, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.
21STCV01946
Jun 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff argues that its claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability sounds in contract because its damages resulted from the defective CytoGuard CDP that it purchased from Defendant under an agreement. (Mtn. 2:19-25.) Defendant argues that the claim does not sound in contract because [u]nlike express warranties, which are basically contractual in nature, the implied warranty of merchantability arises by operation of law. ( American Suzuki Motor Corp. v.
LENNY & LARRY, LLC VS A & B INGREDIENTS, INC.
19STCV37687
Jan 05, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
The demurrer must be SUSTAINED. 6th COA - Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability The duration of the implied warranty of merchantability and where present the implied warranty of fitness are coextensive in duration with an express warranty which accompanies the consumer goods, provided the duration of the express warranty is reasonable; but in no event will such implied warranty have a duration of less than 60 days nor more than one year following the sale of new consumer goods to a retail buyer.
CORTES VS TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
CVPS2300349
May 24, 2023
Riverside County, CA
(a)(3)), and fifth (Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subds. (e) and (f). (Demurrer; 1:22-2:3.) Second Cause of Action (Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subd.
CHAVEZ V. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA
30-2021-01179344
May 25, 2021
Orange County, CA
The FAC asserts the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Song-Beverly Act); (2) Breach of Express Warranty (Song-Beverly Act); and (3) Violation of the Magnusson-Moss Consumer Warranty Act. Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY (Defendant) moves for judgment on the pleadings as to of Plaintiffs First, Second, and third Causes of Action.
CHRISTIAN DELGADO VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION
22NWCV00791
May 11, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability Defendant argues that summary adjudication of this claim should be granted because it is time barred. "The statute of limitations for breaches of the implied warranty of merchantability is four years." (Montoya v. Ford Motor Company (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 493, 495.) Defendant satisfied its prima facie burden by showing that Plaintiff purchased the vehicle on January 17, 2017 and filed the instant lawsuit on February 25, 2022. (UMF 1, 2.)
ASHBY VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
37-2022-00007492-CU-BC-CTL
Nov 03, 2023
San Diego County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.