Products Liability – Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Useful Resources for Products Liability – Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Recent Rulings on Products Liability – Implied Warranty of Merchantability

176-200 of 1050 results

PACHECO VS VISTACAL LUXURY IMPORTS INC

Plaintiffs have failed to establish a triable issue of material fact that the vehicle violated the implied warranty of merchantability. As there is no triable issue of material fact as to pre-existing damage and improper labeling, this cause of action fails. Sixth cause of action for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – Civil Code § 1793.2.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

SHAHNAZ KARDOUH VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL.

Background On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff Shahnaz Kardouh (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendants General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) and Keyes Chevrolet for (1) Violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(d), (2) Violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(b), (3) Violation of Civil Code § 1973.2(a)(3), (4) Breach of Express Written Warranty, and (5) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability arising from the purchase of a 2018 Chevrolet Suburban.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MICHAEL VIRAMONTES, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiffs alleged seven causes of action: (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 the Implied Warranty of Merchantability, (6) Fraud by Omission, and (7) Negligent Repair. The complaint alleges damages arising out of Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2017 Chrysler Pacifica in August 2016.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANA MEJIA VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Plaintiff has not presented substantial evidence to raise a triable issue of material fact. 5th cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, Civil Code §§1791.1, 1794 Civil Code §1791.1 defines “implied warranty of mechantability.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

ARCHIE HEATH, ET AL. VS CHAMPION DODGE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

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 [bold emphasis added].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PAUL BLOUNT VS FCA US LLC

Plaintiff’s complaint contains the following causes of action: (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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 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

    Sep 09, 2020

MOHAMED SALEH VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff Mohamed Saleh commenced this lemon law action against Defendants Kia Motors America, Inc. and Lou Sobh Cerritos Saturn, Inc. dba Kia of Cerritos for (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act; and (2) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement. On August 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $33,974.02.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

REFUGIO DE JESUS OCHOA, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

The Complaint also includes cause of action for breach of express written warranties and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. (Complaint ¶¶ 25-33.) A warranty is a contract and a breach of express warranty claim is a breach of contract claim. (See Comm. Code, § 2725, subds. (1)-(2).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

MOHAMED SALEH VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff Mohamed Saleh commenced this lemon law action against Defendants Kia Motors America, Inc. and Lou Sobh Cerritos Saturn, Inc. dba Kia of Cerritos for (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act; and (2) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement. On August 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $33,974.02.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

ALEEN ARTINIAN VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

.: 19STCV34897 Hearing Date: September 4, 2020 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION Procedural Background On September 30, 2019, plaintiff Aleen Artinian (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against defendants BMW of North America, LLC and Finchey Corporation of California dba Pacific BMW (collectively “Defendants”) alleging causes of action for (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability under the Song-Beverly Act, (2) Breach of Express Warranty

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FRANCISCO RIVERA GONZALEZ VS FCA US, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a complaint arising from an allegedly defective 2016 Jeep Renegade (the “Subject Vehicle”), alleging causes of action against Defendants for: (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Song-Beverly Warranty Act; and (2) breach of express warranty under Song-Beverly Warranty Act. On August 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed and served a memorandum of costs indicating that Plaintiff incurred costs of $550.31 with respect to this action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MCCREADY VS. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

“Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action is for Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability. In American Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

HALE VS. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Therefore, the demurrer to the 5th cause of action for Implied Warranty of Merchantability is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

TIMOTHY PAINTER VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges causes of action as follows: (1) violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(d) against VGA, (2) violation of Civil Code § 1793.2 (b) against VGA, (3) violation of Civil Code § 1793.2 (a)(3) against VGA, (4) breach of express written warranty against VGA, (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability against VGA, (6) negligent repair against PFLV. On July 10, 2020, the court entered a protective order regarding discovery in this action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

TIFFANY BENAVENTE, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

warranty of merchantability—these causes of action are based upon breaches of warranty or other liability, which arose in Ventura County.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

VETERINARY NATURALS, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS PETDINE, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, (4) breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, (5) negligence. Defendant now move to quash service of the Summons and Complaint. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CHU V BROOKFIELD WOODBURY II, LLC

This limited warranty is in addition to the Home Warranty (as defined in Section 22 of the Agreement) but is expressly in lieu of all other warranties of guaranties, express or implied, written or oral, including, but not limited to, any implied warranty of merchantability, habitability or fitness for a particular purpose and, except for the Home Warranty, is the only warranty by Seller applicable to the subject property.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

ANDRES R GARCIA VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Plaintiff argues these documents are relevant to show that Defendant: (1) possessed prior knowledge of the vehicle’s defect; (2) knew the vehicle suffered from defects; (3) knew that it could not repair the vehicle regardless of the number of repair visits; (4) violated the Song-Beverly Act by refusing to repurchase the vehicle; and (5) breached the implied warranty of merchantability by selling Plaintiff a vehicle containing known defects.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

DAVID KIM VS NAOS YACHTS INC ET AL

Defendants argue that “as Plaintiff had no written agreement with Beneteau or CNB, neither is liable for breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim.” (Motion 7:17-18.) In opposition, Plaintiff attempts to discredit the Burr holding as it was premised on the now-repealed Civil Code § 1735, and contends that more relevant authority now exists. However, all three cases cited by Plaintiff are from the District Court for the Central District.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

JOSE ZAVALA VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

2016 Nissan Pathfinder from “Seller” [not identified in the Complaint]; they claim there were problems with the engine, the transmission and the brakes, which defendant[s] was/were unable to repair after a reasonable number of attempts, and that defendant[s] failed/refused to replace/repurchase the vehicle 6/19/20: Plaintiffs filed their Complaint “for damages,” asserting 3 C/As: 1. br/implied warranty of merchantability [Song-Beverly] v. all defs 2. br/express warranty [Song-Beverly] v. all defs 3. fraudulent

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Judge

    Richard L. Fruin

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RAYMOND ALLEN VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges causes of action as follows: (1) violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(d) against GM, (2) violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(b) against GM, (3) violation of Civil Code § 1793.2(A)(3) against GM, (4) breach of express written warranty (Civil Code §§ 1791.2(a), 1794) against GM, (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability against GM, (6) negligent repair against Martin Chevrolet, (7) fraud by omission against GM.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

LETICIA CASTRO VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., 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 01, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JANE DOE VS TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants 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; (6) fraudulent inducement—concealment; and (7) negligent repair.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ALEX MARVEL, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants 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; (6) fraudulent inducement—concealment; and (7) negligent repair.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 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.