On April 07, 2022 a
Motion,Ex Parte
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
ORiGINAL
KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP
Roger Kimos (SBN 283 163)
rogerk@knight1aw.com
Katherine Smith (SBN 339781) ELED
SUPEE‘V
Katherines@knightlaw.com QT 0F CALiFn-‘m M '
COL AN BERN 0"" ~
10250 Constellation B1vd., Suite 2500
'
W
,
«DINO arcAr'r—Té":
Los Angeles, CA 90067 AUG l 2 2022
\OWNO‘NUI-PUJN
Telephone: (310) 552-2250
M
'
Fax: (3 10) 552—7973
avg;
LAURA BRL:(~..:Z"T.;.; ,.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
EDUARDO ESPINOSA and CELIA ESPINOSA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
10
11
Case No.: CIVSB2207097
EDUARDO ESPINOSA and CELIA Unlimited Jurisdiction
12 ESPINOSA,
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF
13
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN A8
Plaintiffs, OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT KIA
14
MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION
15 VS.
TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF XVd
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
16
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a Date: August 18, 2022
California Corporation, and DOES 1 through
17
Time: 8:30AM
18 10, inclusive, Dept: S33
Defendant.
19 Date Filed: April 6, 2022
20 Trial: Not yet set
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM
INTRODUCTION
this action against
Plaintiffs EDUARDO ESPINOSA and CELIA ESPINOSA (“Plaintiffs”) bring
(“AHM” or “Defendant”) seeking redress for
AHM’s
Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
in connection with a defective sensing
defect (inter
misconduct and failure to comply with California law
actured and sold by
\OOONONUl-hthr—m
alia), equipped in Plaintiffs’ 2021 Honda Insight (“the Subject Vehicle”); manuf
(“COMPLAINT”) alleges violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer
AHM. Plaintiffs’ Complaint
0f action for fraudulent inducement by concealment.
Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act”) and cause
Plaintiffs’
t0 strike Plaintiffs’ request for punitive
damages. As further explained below,
Defendant seeks
facts alleged in the Complaint. Thus,
AHM’s
request for punitive damages is properly supported by
motion to strike should be denied.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Vehicle”) on October 14, 2020.
Plaintiffs purchased a 2021 Honda Insight (“Subject
substantial defects and non-conformities to
(Complaint, 11 8.) The Subject Vehicle was delivered with
s sensing defect defects. (Complaint, 17-83, 84-92.) Plaintiffs
warranty, including but not limited to seriou
11
Hi Honda, reviewed marketing brochures, saw televi
sion
had conversations with the sales representatives
at
the quality 0f the Honda Pilot. (Complaint, 1H] 84-86.) At
commercials, and heard radio commercials about
to Plaintiffs any information about
NNNNNNNNNh—tr—dv—Ap—v—Kt-dr—dr—th—h—s
no time did AHM or its authorized agents publicly or privately disclose
71-83, 125.) The sensing defect results from a defect that causes
the sensing defect defect. (Complaint, 1W
defect
to malfunction dangerously while the vehicles are driven. This
the various subsystems within it
OOQOM-bWN—‘OOOONO‘thWNi—‘O
tions on the
impedes the systems’ ability t0 reliably and accurately detect and appropriately respond t0 condi
— most severely
ive cruise control, the lane-departure system, and
roadway, causing malfunctions 0fthe adapt
— the CMBS. (Complaint, 1122.) Plaintiffs were misled by AHM
and its authorized dealership about the
le,
time 0f Plaintiffs’ purchasing the Subject Vehic
problems With the sensing defect prior to and
at the
on the statements from the sales representatives and marketing
(Complaint, fl 84-92.) Plaintiffs relied
Honda (Complaint, W 84-92.) Plaintiffs soon began experiencing
materials about the qualities of the
Pilot.
which resulted in a repair that rendered the vehicle
problems with the sensing defect in the Subject Vehicle,
in the repair facility for thirty-seven days,
and required a torque converter replacement. (Complaint
, W 86-
that the sensing defect in
As stated however, AHM and its authorized agents did not reveal to Plaintiffs
92.)
1
IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM
Document Filed Date
August 12, 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
ORiGINAL KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP Roger Kimos (SBN 283 163) rogerk@knight1aw.com Katherine Smith (SBN 339781) ELED SUPEE‘V Katherines@knightlaw.com QT 0F CALiFn-‘m M ' COL AN BERN 0"" ~ 10250 Constellation B1vd., Suite 2500 ' W , «DINO arcAr'r—Té": Los Angeles, CA 90067 AUG l 2 2022 \OWNO‘NUI-PUJN Telephone: (310) 552-2250 M ' Fax: (3 10) 552—7973 avg; LAURA BRL:(~..:Z"T.;.; ,. Attorneys for Plaintiffs, EDUARDO ESPINOSA and CELIA ESPINOSA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO 10 11 Case No.: CIVSB2207097 EDUARDO ESPINOSA and CELIA Unlimited Jurisdiction 12 ESPINOSA, PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF 13 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN A8 Plaintiffs, OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT KIA 14 MOTORS AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION 15 VS. TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF XVd PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT 16 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a Date: August 18, 2022 California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 17 Time: 8:30AM 18 10, inclusive, Dept: S33 Defendant. 19 Date Filed: April 6, 2022 20 Trial: Not yet set 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM INTRODUCTION this action against Plaintiffs EDUARDO ESPINOSA and CELIA ESPINOSA (“Plaintiffs”) bring (“AHM” or “Defendant”) seeking redress for AHM’s Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc., in connection with a defective sensing defect (inter misconduct and failure to comply with California law actured and sold by \OOONONUl-hthr—m alia), equipped in Plaintiffs’ 2021 Honda Insight (“the Subject Vehicle”); manuf (“COMPLAINT”) alleges violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer AHM. Plaintiffs’ Complaint 0f action for fraudulent inducement by concealment. Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act”) and cause Plaintiffs’ t0 strike Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages. As further explained below, Defendant seeks facts alleged in the Complaint. Thus, AHM’s request for punitive damages is properly supported by motion to strike should be denied. STATEMENT OF FACTS Vehicle”) on October 14, 2020. Plaintiffs purchased a 2021 Honda Insight (“Subject substantial defects and non-conformities to (Complaint, 11 8.) The Subject Vehicle was delivered with s sensing defect defects. (Complaint, 17-83, 84-92.) Plaintiffs warranty, including but not limited to seriou 11 Hi Honda, reviewed marketing brochures, saw televi sion had conversations with the sales representatives at the quality 0f the Honda Pilot. (Complaint, 1H] 84-86.) At commercials, and heard radio commercials about to Plaintiffs any information about NNNNNNNNNh—tr—dv—Ap—v—Kt-dr—dr—th—h—s no time did AHM or its authorized agents publicly or privately disclose 71-83, 125.) The sensing defect results from a defect that causes the sensing defect defect. (Complaint, 1W defect to malfunction dangerously while the vehicles are driven. This the various subsystems within it OOQOM-bWN—‘OOOONO‘thWNi—‘O tions on the impedes the systems’ ability t0 reliably and accurately detect and appropriately respond t0 condi — most severely ive cruise control, the lane-departure system, and roadway, causing malfunctions 0fthe adapt — the CMBS. (Complaint, 1122.) Plaintiffs were misled by AHM and its authorized dealership about the le, time 0f Plaintiffs’ purchasing the Subject Vehic problems With the sensing defect prior to and at the on the statements from the sales representatives and marketing (Complaint, fl 84-92.) Plaintiffs relied Honda (Complaint, W 84-92.) Plaintiffs soon began experiencing materials about the qualities of the Pilot. which resulted in a repair that rendered the vehicle problems with the sensing defect in the Subject Vehicle, in the repair facility for thirty-seven days, and required a torque converter replacement. (Complaint , W 86- that the sensing defect in As stated however, AHM and its authorized agents did not reveal to Plaintiffs 92.) 1 IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM