Products Liability – Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Useful Resources for Products Liability – Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Recent Rulings on Products Liability – Implied Warranty of Merchantability

151-175 of 1050 results

MARIA GUZMAN VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Plaintiff argues that the documents are relevant to her Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act claims, including her breach of express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability. The objections lack merit with regard to RPD No. 7. The request is not vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, or irrelevant to the facts of the case.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HAZEL MENDEZ, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

While, “[t]he implied warranty of merchantability may be breached by a latent defect undiscoverable at the time of sale[,]” (Mexia, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p.1304), the statute of limitations does not run from discovery.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KARINA TORRES VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Plaintiff argues that the documents are relevant to her Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act claims, including her breach of express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability. The objections lack merit with regard to RPD No. 7. The request is not vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, or irrelevant to the facts of the case.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARK DORIA VS BMW NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges the defects violated the express written warranties as well as the implied warranty of merchantability. On November 12, 2019, McKenna filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to arbitration. BMW filed a notice of consent to arbitrate on the same date. On February 28, 2020, the Court granted McKenna’s motion to compel Plaintiff to arbitration. The Court, however, did not compel Plaintiff to arbitrate with BMW.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LUIS VASQUEZ, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for implied warranty of merchantability appears on the face of the complaint to be time-barred by the limitations period in Commercial Code section 2725 because the implied warranty of merchantability is not a warranty that explicitly extends to future performance of the goods.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

SONIA LAJAS VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

The TAC asserts causes of action for: Civil Penalties pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(e) (against Hyundai Motor); Civil Penalties pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(c) (against Hyundai Motor); Breach of Express Warranty (against Hyundai Motor); and Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability. On April 15, 2020, Defendant Hyundai Motor (hereinafter “Defendant”) filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel, currently set for hearing on November 9, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

MARIA GOMEZ VS HYUANDI MOTOR AMERICA

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

SONIA LAJAS VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

The TAC asserts causes of action for: Civil Penalties pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(e) (against Hyundai Motor); Civil Penalties pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(c) (against Hyundai Motor); Breach of Express Warranty (against Hyundai Motor); and Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability. On April 15, 2020, Defendant Hyundai Motor (hereinafter “Defendant”) filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel, currently set for hearing on November 9, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

NATHALY CONDE VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on March 2, 2020, alleging two causes of action for: (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“the Song-Beverly Act”); and (2) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiff presents evidence she propounded discovery on Defendant on April 24, 2020, by mail, including her Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROGs”) and Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RFPs”). Declaration of David N.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

NELSON RENE PINEDA VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

However, Plaintiff asserts in the fifth cause of action that such an implied warranty of merchantability does exist as against dealer Defendant H.W. Hunter. As such, the dispute between Defendant H.W. Hunter—that the implied warranty of merchantability was disclaimed—and the Plaintiff—that the implied warranty of merchantability exists—comes within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Indeed, the fifth cause of action alleges that Civil Code § 1792 imposes an implied warranty of merchantability.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

K SWISS INTERNATIONAL LTD VS CARTER INTERNATIONAL S A

BACKGROUND Cross-Complainant filed a Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“SAXC”) against Cross-Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of written contracts; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (4) breach of implied warranty of fitness; (5) fraud; (6) unfair competition; (7) intentional interference with contractual relations; and (8) negligent interference with prospective business advantage.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

TINATRA BRITTANY GLASPIE VS FCA US LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) violation of Civil Code § 1793.2, subdivision (d), (2) violation of Civil Code § 1793.2, subdivision (b), (2) violation of Civil Code § 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3), (4) breach of express written warranty (Civil Code §§ 1791.2, subdivision (a), 1794, (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (Civil Code §§ 1791.1, 1794. On January 28, 2019, Defendants filed their answer to the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

NUTSIRI KIKKUL VS REDONDO BEACH HOSPITALITY COMPANY LLC ET A

Issue No. 2 – Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability Defendant also moves for summary adjudication on the grounds that Plaintiff purchased her car from another retail seller; Plaintiff’s vehicle was fit for its ordinary purpose of transportation; and Plaintiff’s implied warranty of merchantability has expired. Civ.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

EMILIANO CHACON VS WALNUT PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ET AL

Plaintiff alleges strict liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability in the complaint in relation to a defective mini mill causing Plaintiff injuries on December 7, 2015. On May 13, 2020, Defendant filed a motion for leave to augment its expert witness list pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.610. On May 14, 2020, the Court scheduled the hearing on Defendant’s motion for September 24, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

ROBERTO HERNANDEZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC.

However, the Song-Beverly Act also 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 if the vehicle was sold at the time of sale with a known defect. (CC § 1794(a); Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 17 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1304-05.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LUIS SALAZAR VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act 2. Breach of Express Warranty under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act On March 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of entire case. Plaintiff now moves for an award of attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. Defendants RP Automotive and JLRNA (collectively “Defendants”) oppose the motion. Evidentiary Objections Defendants’ evidentiary objections to the declaration of M. Nicholas Nita are OVERRULED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALBERTO CABRERA, ET AL. VS FCA US LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Act because: (1) Defendant Premier leased a defective vehicle, thereby breaching the implied warranty of merchantability; (2) Defendant FCA failed to commence repairs within a reasonable time and/or failed to complete repairs within 30 days, thereby breaching the Warranty; and (3) Defendants FCA and Premier (collectively, “Defendants”) failed to return the consideration paid by Plaintiffs and/or failed to replace the defective vehicle.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LINDA MARIE DE LA RIVA VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

In light of the Act’s explicitly articulated legislative intent that it supplements the UCC, courts have concluded that claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Civil Code section 1791.1, subdivision (c), are governed by the four-year statute of limitations period set forth in section 2725 of the UCC. (See Krieger v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 205, 213-214.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

SAGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INC ET AL VS D-LINK SYSTEMS INC

Plaintiffs assert that the Devices violate the implied warranty of merchantability under the California Commercial Code, Section 2316, applying to sales of goods. Defendants assert the Commercial Code does not apply because the settlement agreement was to settle the underlying litigation, and was not for a sale of goods; and that under the common law, both parties bore the risk under the Settlement Agreement’s terms. The California U.C.C. applies only to contracts for the sale of “goods.” (See Com.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

THEODORA PARNAVELAS, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

., alleging various violations of the Song-Beverly Act, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, fraud, and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. On June 12, 2020 Defendant filed a motion to transfer the venue to Orange County on the grounds that both parties are residents of Orange County, the vehicle at issue was purchased in Orange County, and Defendant’s principal place of business is in Orange County.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

ROSY M ROSALES VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civil Code Section 1791.1; Section 1794) A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Failure to Appear are set for September 21, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

CHRISTOPHER SANFORD, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

(“Defendant”) alleging two causes of action for (1) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and (2) breach of the express warranty. These causes of action arise from Plaintiffs’ purchase of a 2013 Kia Forte. On May 27, 2020, Plaintiffs accepted Defendant’s Code of Civil Procedure § 998 offer. On August 24, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for attorney fees. On September 9, 2020, Defendant filed an opposition and evidentiary objections. On September 14, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a reply.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

YAKIR Y COHEN VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

., 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; 5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability civil code section 1791.1 section 1794.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

VICTOR MANUEL TELLEZPARRA VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

., 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; 5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability civil code section 1791.1 section 1794.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALEXANDER WEINBERGER VS MCLAREN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

The operative First Amended Complaint for Damages (“FAC”) was filed on January 30, 2020, and asserts a cause of action for breach of implied warranty of merchantability (against MAI and the Dealership) and a cause of action for breach of express warranty (against MAI only) arising out of Weinberger’s purchase of a 2018 McLaren 570S Spider (the “Subject Vehicle”). MAI and the Dealership now each move for summary judgment (and the Dealership also moves alternatively for summary adjudication).

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 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.