Defendant First Motor Group of Encino LLC’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
On December 22, 2017, Plaintiff Rosa May (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant breach of warranty 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 wa
Hearing Date
September 25, 2020
Type
Civil Rights/Discrimination (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Court-Ordered Dismissal - Other (Other) 10/02/2018
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Defendant First Motor Group of Encino LLC’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
On December 22, 2017, Plaintiff Rosa May (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant breach of warranty 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 wa