On April 07, 2022 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Espinosa, Celia,
Espinosa, Eduardo,
and
American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
Does 1 Through 10,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH LLP
Michael J. Hurvitz (SBN 249050)
mike.hurvitz@nelsonmullins.com
Ian G. Schuler (SBN 275052) F | L
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CAUFonNm
D
ian.schuler@nelsonmullins.com 38m” 0F SAN BERNARDINC‘
.5 Ariel N. Redfem (SBN 3413 14)
‘
BERNARD'NO D'S’R'CT
ariel.redfern nelsonmullins.com
750 B Street,@Suite 2200 NOV O 9 2022
San Diego, CA 92101 ,.,
Telephone: 619.489.61 10
(Cg? zAYé'
Fa031mlle: 6 1 9.82 1 .2834 By- sreph‘éfiie
\OWNO‘sUl
pmabha‘ Deputy
Attorneys for Defendant
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LLP
10 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SCARBOROUGH
11 EDUARDO ESPINOSA and CELIA ESPINOSA, Case No. CIVSB2207097
LAw
AT
12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA
8: DIEGO
MOTOR CO., INC.’S ANSWER TO
RILEY 13 vs. PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND
SAN
ATTORNEYS
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
MULLINS
14 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. a
California corporation, and DOES through 10, 1 JUDGE: Hon. Winston Keh
15 inclusive, DEPT: S33
NELSON
16 Defendant.
Trial Date: Not Yet Set
17 Action Filed: April 6, 2022
18
19 TO PLAINTIFFS ANEfLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
!
20 Defendant American Honda Motor CO., Inc. (“AHM”), for itself alone and for no other parties,
21
22
23
hereby answers
Under
Plaintiffs’
the provisions 0f
Complaint as follows:
Code of
GENERAL DENIAL @EAW E
Civil Procedure section 431.30, subdivision (d), defendant
24 AHM denies every allegation, both specifically and generally, of each cause 0f action contained in
25 Plaintiffs’ Complaint on file herein and the whole thereof and denies that Plaintiffs were damaged in
26 any sum or sums, or at all.
27 / / /
28 ///
1
DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
7
\I 1
\r
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
N (Failure to State a Cause 0f Action)
‘
L»)
1. Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails t0 state facts sufficient t0 constitute a cause 0f action
A against AHM.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Misuse, Abuse, Unauthorized 0r Unreasonable Use)
2. AHM is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiffs and/or others
\OOONQM
misused or abused the subject vehicle or engaged in unauthorized or unreasonable use 0fthe subj ect
vehicle, contrary to AHM’s approval or consent and Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were proximately
LLP
10 caused by such abuse and neglect of the vehicle.
SCARBOROUGH
11 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
LAW
12 (Warranty Exclusion)
AT
8: DIEGO
RILEY
ATTORNEYS
SAN
13 3. AHM is informed and believes, and 0n that basis alleges, that the damages asserted in
MULLINS
14 the Complaint were not the result of any defect in material or workmanship in any vehicle distributed
15 by AHM or that the subject vehicle's use, safety 0r value was impaired. Specifically, AHM alleges
NELSON
16 that after appropriate discovery, one or more of the stated specific warranty exclusions may be
17 applicable.
18 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (Lack of Maintenance)
20 4. AHM is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiffs are precluded
21 from recovery by reason 0f Plaintiffs’ failure t0 maintain and service the subj ect vehicle in
22 conformance with the requirements and recommendations of the owner's manual and/or warranty
23 booklet.
24 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 (Third Party Dispute Resolution Process)
26 5. AHM is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiffs and/or the
27 owner 0f the subject vehicle received timely notice of the availability of a third-party dispute
28 resolution process, and that no effort was made to use such process.
2
DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Document Filed Date
November 09, 2022
Case Filing Date
April 07, 2022
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP Michael J. Hurvitz (SBN 249050) mike.hurvitz@nelsonmullins.com Ian G. Schuler (SBN 275052) F | L SUPERIOR COURT 0F CAUFonNm D ian.schuler@nelsonmullins.com 38m” 0F SAN BERNARDINC‘ .5 Ariel N. Redfem (SBN 3413 14) ‘ BERNARD'NO D'S’R'CT ariel.redfern nelsonmullins.com 750 B Street,@Suite 2200 NOV O 9 2022 San Diego, CA 92101 ,., Telephone: 619.489.61 10 (Cg? zAYé' Fa031mlle: 6 1 9.82 1 .2834 By- sreph‘éfiie \OWNO‘sUl pmabha‘ Deputy Attorneys for Defendant AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LLP 10 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SCARBOROUGH 11 EDUARDO ESPINOSA and CELIA ESPINOSA, Case No. CIVSB2207097 LAw AT 12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA 8: DIEGO MOTOR CO., INC.’S ANSWER TO RILEY 13 vs. PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND SAN ATTORNEYS DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MULLINS 14 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. a California corporation, and DOES through 10, 1 JUDGE: Hon. Winston Keh 15 inclusive, DEPT: S33 NELSON 16 Defendant. Trial Date: Not Yet Set 17 Action Filed: April 6, 2022 18 19 TO PLAINTIFFS ANEfLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: ! 20 Defendant American Honda Motor CO., Inc. (“AHM”), for itself alone and for no other parties, 21 22 23 hereby answers Under Plaintiffs’ the provisions 0f Complaint as follows: Code of GENERAL DENIAL @EAW E Civil Procedure section 431.30, subdivision (d), defendant 24 AHM denies every allegation, both specifically and generally, of each cause 0f action contained in 25 Plaintiffs’ Complaint on file herein and the whole thereof and denies that Plaintiffs were damaged in 26 any sum or sums, or at all. 27 / / / 28 /// 1 DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 7 \I 1 \r FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE N (Failure to State a Cause 0f Action) ‘ L») 1. Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails t0 state facts sufficient t0 constitute a cause 0f action A against AHM. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Misuse, Abuse, Unauthorized 0r Unreasonable Use) 2. AHM is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiffs and/or others \OOONQM misused or abused the subject vehicle or engaged in unauthorized or unreasonable use 0fthe subj ect vehicle, contrary to AHM’s approval or consent and Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were proximately LLP 10 caused by such abuse and neglect of the vehicle. SCARBOROUGH 11 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE LAW 12 (Warranty Exclusion) AT 8: DIEGO RILEY ATTORNEYS SAN 13 3. AHM is informed and believes, and 0n that basis alleges, that the damages asserted in MULLINS 14 the Complaint were not the result of any defect in material or workmanship in any vehicle distributed 15 by AHM or that the subject vehicle's use, safety 0r value was impaired. Specifically, AHM alleges NELSON 16 that after appropriate discovery, one or more of the stated specific warranty exclusions may be 17 applicable. 18 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Lack of Maintenance) 20 4. AHM is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiffs are precluded 21 from recovery by reason 0f Plaintiffs’ failure t0 maintain and service the subj ect vehicle in 22 conformance with the requirements and recommendations of the owner's manual and/or warranty 23 booklet. 24 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Third Party Dispute Resolution Process) 26 5. AHM is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiffs and/or the 27 owner 0f the subject vehicle received timely notice of the availability of a third-party dispute 28 resolution process, and that no effort was made to use such process. 2 DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL