What is products liability – negligent repair?

Useful Rulings on Products Liability – Negligent Repair

Recent Rulings on Products Liability – Negligent Repair

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

repair.

  • Hearing

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

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KENNETH THOMPSON ET AL VS CORSICA APARTMENT HOMES ET AL

A fire ignited on 2/22/18, and caused by Defendant’s “negligent repair, maintenance and/or work and/or failure to maintain, inspect, and/or repair the premises, tools, fixtures and/or equipment employed therein, including but not limited to the electrical, plumbing and other systems of the Corsica Apartments.” The TAC asserts causes of action for: 1. Negligence 2. Breach of Lease Agreement 3. Wrongful Eviction 4. Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability 5. NIED 6.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DANIEL KANG VS VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

Code § 1791.1, § 1794, § 1795.5) (against Volvo NA); Fraud by Omission (against Volvo NA); and Negligent Repair (against Volvo SM). On July 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed his motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). On October 23, 2020, Volvo NA opposed the motion. On October 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply. Legal Standard California law holds that leave to amend is to be granted liberally, to accomplish substantial justice for both parties. (Hirsa v.

  • Hearing

DANIEL KANG VS VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

Code § 1791.1, § 1794, § 1795.5) (against Volvo NA); Fraud by Omission (against Volvo NA); and Negligent Repair (against Volvo SM). On July 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed his motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). On October 23, 2020, Volvo NA opposed the motion. On October 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply. Legal Standard California law holds that leave to amend is to be granted liberally, to accomplish substantial justice for both parties. (Hirsa v.

  • Hearing

CESAR MENDEZ VS MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

The Complaint states three causes of action for Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act violations, and negligent repair. Plaintiff dismissed Car Well on October 30, 2019. On August 20, 2020, the parties represented that the case was settled. On October 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement and Civil Code § 1794(d). On October 21, 2020, Defendants filed an opposition. On October 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SUSAN SCHOEN ET AL VS MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC ET AL

Schoen (jointly “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action against defendants Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, (“Defendant”) and Sonic Santa Monica M, Inc. alleging causes of action for (1) Breach of Express Warranty - Violation of Song-Beverly Act, (2) Breach of Implied Warranty - Violation of Song-Beverly Act, and (3) Negligent Repair.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DIHEN V. VOLVO USA, INC., ET AL.

She filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) approximately a month later on October 16, 2020, asserting the following causes of action: (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 warranty; (5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (6) fraud by omission; and (7) negligent repair.

  • Hearing

WOOLSTON VS MULLEN

Mullen has been sued for negligent repair, and relatedly, negligent misrepresentation regarding the repairs. Although plaintiff has argued arbitration should be denied because of the threat of inconsistent rulings, plaintiff and Mullen could proceed with the civil case first with Mullen to determine whether the repairs were defective without raising the risk of inconsistent rulings.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

WOOLSTON VS MULLEN

Mullen has been sued for negligent repair, and relatedly, negligent misrepresentation regarding the repairs. Although plaintiff has argued arbitration should be denied because of the threat of inconsistent rulings, plaintiff and Mullen could proceed with the civil case first with Mullen to determine whether the repairs were defective without raising the risk of inconsistent rulings.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

EFRAIN SANCHEZ, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ 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 against GM, (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability against all Defendants, (6) negligent repair against Rotolo. Plaintiff now moves to compel GM to provide further responses to Requests for Production, Set One from GM.

  • Hearing

KUCICH VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC

Negligent Repair and Fraud causes of action (3rd -6th causes of action) The statute of limitations for the negligent repair and fraud causes of action is three years. (CCP §338(b-d).) Fraud does not accrue until the discovery of the facts constituted the fraud. (Id.)

  • Hearing

CHARLES TROTTER VS JONATHAN G. PASSARO

Chiu¿(2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 775, 781 (medical malpractice claim alleged that dermatologist¿“negligently and carelessly examined, cared for, followed up on, and treated” patient; negligent maintenance claim alleged that dermatologist's negligent repair and maintenance of laser machine proximately caused patient's hearing loss and vertigo when machine emitted loud sound during treatment).)¿ Here, the same set of facts are alleged for all three causes of action.¿ The medical negligence, general negligence, and

  • Hearing

KOONTZ VS FCA US LLC

On 5/3/19, Plaintiff filed his complaint against Defendant FCA for (1) breach of implied warranty (Song-Beverly); (2) breach of express warranty (Song-Beverly); and (3) negligent repair. By this Motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant FCA to produce its PMK Michael McDowell for further deposition contending that counsel for Defendant improperly instructed McDowell not to answer three deposition questions.

  • Hearing

FRANK ACEDO, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

The FAC specifically, alleges seven causes of action 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 Express Written Warranty, (5) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, (6) Fraudulent Inducement, and (7) Negligent Repair. The first six causes of action are against Defendant FCA, and the last cause of action is against Moss Bros.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JEREMY ROBINSON, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

Thus, the only remaining cause of action against Glenn is for negligent repair, i.e., the seventh cause of action. Glenn argues that Plaintiffs’ claims are subject to arbitration under both the FAA and CAA. Glenn further argues the Retail Installment Sale Contract – Simple Finance Charge (With Arbitration Provision) (“Sales Agreement”) is valid and enforceable.

  • Hearing

MICHAEL TUMLINSON AND LESLIE TUMLINSON VS FCA US LLC

Plaintiffs allege numerous causes of action including, among other things, statutory violations, breach of warranty, and negligent repair, but the only two causes of action at issue in the present demurrer are the following: (6) fraud-concealment (8) unfair business practices (violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) Defendants demur to these two causes of action. Merits of Motion – Sixth Cause of Action (Fraudulent Concealment) Defendants argue that fraud must be pled with particularity.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NELSON IGLESIAS, ET AL. VS SAN FERNANDO MOTOR COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Defendants finally demurs to Plaintiffs’ fraud and negligent repair claims arguing that they are barred by the economic loss rule. (MPA, p. 2:14-16.) The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ causes of action for fraudulent inducement – concealment and negligent repair are not barred by the economic loss rule. Tort damages are permitted in contract cases where the contract has been fraudulently induced.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RYAN BOX, ET AL. VS ORANGE COAST AUTO GROUP, LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY , ET AL.

The Complaint alleges four causes of action for: 1) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty; 2) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of implied warranty; 3) violation of Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2; and 4) negligent repair. Plaintiffs allege that on June 18, 2017, Defendants sold them a new 2017 Alfa Romeo Giulia (the “vehicle”). In violations of the warranties, the vehicle was sold with serious defects and nonconformities. On April 30, 2020, Orange filed an answer.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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

The Court notes that “the county where the contract is made or is to be performed” (§ 395.5) does not apply to the negligent repair cause of action because it is based upon a common law duty of care in accordance with industry standards, not a breach of contract. Accordingly, Defendant WB Simi Valley is entitled to transfer of venue to Ventura County where it is deemed to reside. The motion to transfer venue to Ventura County is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

MELITA STEWARD VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL.

The complaint alleges six causes of action relating to Defendant’s alleged violations of the Song Beverly Act in connection with Plaintiff’s October 2012 purchase of a 2009 Buick Enclave (“subject vehicle”) and a seventh cause of action relating to the negligent repair performed by Defendant Penske Buick GMC of Cerritos (“Penske”), not a party to the instant demurrer. (Complaint ¶¶7, 74-78.) Plaintiff’s 6th (fraud by omission) cause of action is only alleged against Defendant.

  • Hearing

JULIO EDGARDO CABRERA, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on April 29, 2019, alleging four causes of action for: (1) breach of express warranty in violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“the Song-Beverly Act”) against Ford; (2) breach of implied warranty in violation of the Song-Beverly Act against Ford; (3) violation of Civil Code § 1793.2 against Ford; and (4) negligent repair against Sunrise Ford.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.