Plaintiff Rosa May’s motion for summary adjudication is taken OFF-CALENDAR.
On December 22, 2017, Plaintiff Rosa May (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant lemon law complaint against Defendant First Motor Group of Encino LLC (“Defendant” or “FMG”). The Complaint alleges two causes of action for: 1) violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”); and 2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability.
The Complaint alleges that on March 27, 2012, Plaintiff purchased a pre-owned 2009 Mercedes-Benz C300 (the “vehicle”) from Defendant, an auto dealer. In April 2016, the vehicle needed to be serviced by Defendant when the SRS control unit/airbag module needed to be replaced and reprogrammed. In May 2016, Plaintiff received a letter from Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, informing her that a defect related to safety exists. In August 2016, she received a second letter indicating that a safety defect exists. Subsequently, Plaintiff took the vehicle to Defendant many times because she was scared to continu
Hearing Date
August 22, 2019
Type
Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Deemed Complete (No Remand from Federal Court) 02/01/2018
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Plaintiff Rosa May’s motion for summary adjudication is taken OFF-CALENDAR.
On December 22, 2017, Plaintiff Rosa May (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant lemon law complaint against Defendant First Motor Group of Encino LLC (“Defendant” or “FMG”). The Complaint alleges two causes of action for: 1) violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”); and 2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability.
The Complaint alleges that on March 27, 2012, Plaintiff purchased a pre-owned 2009 Mercedes-Benz C300 (the “vehicle”) from Defendant, an auto dealer. In April 2016, the vehicle needed to be serviced by Defendant when the SRS control unit/airbag module needed to be replaced and reprogrammed. In May 2016, Plaintiff received a letter from Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, informing her that a defect related to safety exists. In August 2016, she received a second letter indicating that a safety defect exists. Subsequently, Plaintiff took the vehicle to Defendant many times because she was scared to continu