Products Liability – Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Useful Resources for Products Liability – Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Recent Rulings on Products Liability – Implied Warranty of Merchantability

201-225 of 1041 results

GERMAN BAUTISTA VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

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

    Aug 27, 2020

MORRIS BROWN VS EATALIAN CAFE

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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

MY HOANG KIEU LE VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

warranty of merchantability.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

YELENA PORTNAYA VS MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) violation of Pennsylvania Lemon Law, (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (3) negligent repair, (4) misrepresentation, and (5) violation of Magnuson-Moss Act. Plaintiff’s claims arise from her purchase of a 2018 Mercedes-Benz Sprinter (Vehicle).

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

STERLING C. CHURCH, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on February 4, 2020, alleging seven causes of action for: (1) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(d) (the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act or the Song-Beverly Act); (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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

ROBERT BATTAGLIA VS. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC

Plaintiff further alleges that the subject vehicle was not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used and was not of the same quality as those generally acceptable in the trade, thus breaching the implied warranty of merchantability and implied warranty of fitness. (Complaint, 11 10.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant, alleging various lemon law causes of action for: Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d); Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b); Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3); Breach of Express Warranty; Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability; and the Sixth, Fraud by Omission.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

DANIEL SWEISS VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC ET AL

Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges causes of action as follows: (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 (Civil Code § 1791.2(a), (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability against, (6) fraud.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

SILVIA PEREZ VS KIA MOTORS OF AMERICA, INC.

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant, alleging various lemon law causes of action for: Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d); Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b); Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3); Breach of Express Warranty; Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability; and the Sixth, Fraud by Omission.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

LUIS ENRIQUE VARGAS-CARRILLO VS WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC

., negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and claim against surety against Defendant Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services (“Defendant”). On January 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration, Petition for Court to Pick Arbitration Forum, Request for Stay, and Request for Costs (the “Motion”).

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

JOHN SCANDURRA, ET AL. VS VOLVO CAR USA, LLC, ET AL.

Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability The complaint alleges the vehicle developed defects within one year of the date of purchase which caused the vehicle to be unfit for its ordinary purpose and use. (Compl. ¶¶32-33.) The demurrer is OVERRULED.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

RASANDRA RIVERA, ET AL. VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

Civil Code § 1793.2(a)(3) C/A 4: Breach of Express Written Warranty C/A 5: Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability C/A 6: Violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act C/A 7: Fraud For Plaintiffs’ fraud claim, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant knew about serious defects and non-conformities since 2018 or before, but failed to disclose these defects.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BARRERA VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

Demurrer overruled. 5th COA: Implied Warranty – Demurrer Sustained with 20-Days Leave to Amend In California, every sale of a new vehicle is accompanied by a limited implied warranty of merchantability. Civil Code §1792. During the first 12 months post-sale, every vehicle must pass without objection under the contract description, be fit for its ordinary purpose, be adequately contained/packaged/labeled, and conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the vehicle itself.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

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

    Aug 21, 2020

RICHARD FLIER, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, 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; (6) fraud by omission; and (7) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”).

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

WAGNER VS MERCEDES BENZ USA

For similar reasons, plaintiffs have not met their burden of establishing the essential elements of count two (breach of implied warranty of merchantability). An implied warranty of merchantability guarantees that the vehicle is fit for ordinary purposes – i.e., driving. See Civ. Code § 1791.1(a); see also Isip, 155 Cal.App.4th at 26. Here, plaintiffs' only evidence that the vehicle is unfit are the recall notices.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

TERESA LIZARRAGA VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

On April 20, 2020, Plaintiff Teresa Lizarraga commenced this lemon law action against Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. 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. On June 1, 2020, Defendant filed the instant demurrer to the third cause of action in the complaint and motion to strike the request for punitive damages in the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

COOPER RIVER HOLDINGS INC VS THE VIKING CORPORATION, ET. AL.

James Grudger, Jeffrey Hill, Jeff Norton, Scott Martorano and Does 1-1000, alleging: (1) unfair business practices; (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (3) breach of implies warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, (4) implied equitable indemnity, and (5) declaratory relief. On July 7, 2020, defendant Jeff Norton (Mr.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CHRISTOPHER MONROY VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC.

Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civil Code § 1791.1; § 1794) The Final Status Conference is set for November 23, 2020. Trial is set for December 1, 2020. Legal Standard A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete representations of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

ROSA MAY VS FIRST MOTOR GROUP OF ENCINO LLC ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

MARAT CHORNY VS SPECIAL CAKES BY RUBEN, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on September 4, 2019, alleging four (4) causes of action sounding in: (1) Strict Product Liability; (2) Negligence; (3) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; and (4) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. PRESENTATION: In its January 9, 2020 minute order, a prior superior court under Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch found that Defendant was a suspended corporation and lacked legal capacity to defend a civil action during its suspension.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JEFF WADE, ET AL. VS SOURTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

CACI 3210 provides the essential factual elements for breach of implied warranty of merchantability: [Name of plaintiff] claims that the [consumer good] did not have the quality that a buyer would reasonably expect. This is known as “breach of an implied warranty.” To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following: 1. That [name of plaintiff] bought a[n] [consumer good] [from/manufactured by] [name of defendant]; 2.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

CACI 3210 provides the essential factual elements for breach of implied warranty of merchantability: [Name of plaintiff] claims that the [consumer good] did not have the quality that a buyer would reasonably expect. This is known as “breach of an implied warranty.” To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following: 1. That [name of plaintiff] bought a[n] [consumer good] [from/manufactured by] [name of defendant]; 2.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RICHARD FLIER, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, 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; (6) fraud by omission; and (7) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”).

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

JEFF CLEVELAND, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

CACI 3210 provides the essential factual elements for breach of implied warranty of merchantability: [Name of plaintiff] claims that the [consumer good] did not have the quality that a buyer would reasonably expect. This is known as “breach of an implied warranty.” To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following: 1. That [name of plaintiff] bought a[n] [consumer good] [from/manufactured by] [name of defendant]; 2.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  « 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.