Orozco v. Power Toyota Cerritos

CONSUMER LAW

Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act

 ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff, Salvador Orozco

Lawrence Hutchins, Esq. (Law Offices of Lawrence Hutchins – Bellflower, CA)

 Defendant, Power Toyota Cerritos

Elizabeth L. Kolar, Esq. (Kolar & Associates – Santa Ana, CA)

 Defendant, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

Sean D. Beatty, Esq. (Beatty & Myers – Long Beach, CA)

 FACTS:

On August 25, 2007, Plaintiff purchased a 2008 Toyota Scion from Power Toyota Cerritos.  In December 2007, Plaintiff took the vehicle to Power Toyota Cerritos with reports of electrical issues. 

 In March of 2008, Plaintiff had Pro Window Tinting/Car Audio install aftermarket radio equipment into the vehicle.  On March 21, 2009, Plaintiff reported a “burning” smell at 18,085 miles.  The dealership could not duplicate the concern. 

 In June 2008, Plaintiff was driving the vehicle on the freeway when the vehicle caught on fire.  Toyota of Cerritos tendered to TMS.  TMS denied the tender and Toyota of Cerritos filed a Cross Complaint against TMS.  On the eve of trial, Plaintiff settled his suit for a buy back and attorneys’ fees against TMS.  Plaintiff dismissed his suit against Toyota of Cerritos for a waiver of costs.  Toyota of Cerritos pursued its indemnity Cross Complaint against TMS and prevailed and recovered all of its attorney’s fees from TMS for wrongfully refusing to accept the tender.

 COURT TRIAL:

Verdict for Toyota of Cerritos

Hovsepian v. Mercedes-Benz Laguna Niguel

CONSUMER LAW

Breach of Contract

Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act

 ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff, Hamlet Hovsepian

William Rosensweig, Esq. (Mathon & Rosensweig P.C. – Beverly Hills, CA)

 Defendant, Mercedes-Benz Laguna Niguel

Elizabeth L. Kolar, Esq. (Kolar & Associates – Santa Ana, CA)

 FACTS:

Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Mercedes-Benz of Laguna Niguel alleging rescission, breach of contract, and violation of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiff alleged Mercedes-Benz of Laguna Niguel took too long in providing him registration for the used 2003 Porsche 911 which he purchased entitling him to rescission.  He also alleged the vehicle was a “lemon.”  Defendant argued that it timely provided the registration and the vehicle did not have any non-conformities which affected the safety, use or value of the vehicle.

 COURT TRIAL:

Defense verdict for Mercedes-Benz Laguna Niguel with costs awarded in favor of dealership.

Griswold v. Autowest Dodge Chrysler Jeep

CASE TYPE:

Personal injury – Rear end auto accident

 ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff, Deidra Griswold

Christopher Price, Esq. (Ashton & Price, LLP – Fair Oaks, CA)

 Defendants, Autowest Dodge Chrysler Jeep & Ruslan Lashchuk

Elizabeth L. Kolar, Esq. (Kolar & Associates – Santa Ana, CA)

FACTS:

Dealer employee rear ended Plaintiff while stopped at light.  Plaintiff alleged that she suffered neck and back injuries resulting in medical expenses and surgery of over $250,000 and loss of earnings of $75,000.  Liability and causation disputed.  Demand of $450,000 made.  Offer of $350,000 made and rejected.

JURY TRIAL:

Defense verdict for Autowest Dodge Chrysler Jeep and Ruslan Lashchuk. 

Costs and fees awarded to Defendants. 

Ehirim v. Power Ford Torrance

EMPLOYEMENT LAW:

Race Discrimination in Violation of Government Code section 12940

Racial Harassment in Violation of Government Code section 12940

Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy for Complaints of Unlawful Employment Acts

Racial Discrimination in Violation of the California Constitution

 ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff, Michael Ehirim

Odion Okojie, Esq. (Law Offices of Odion Leslie Okojie – Los Angeles, CA)

Nnogo C. Obiamiwe, Esq. (Law Offices of Nnogo C. Obiamiwe – Los Angeles, CA)

 Defendant, Power Ford Torrance

Elizabeth L. Kolar, Esq. (Kolar & Associates- Santa Ana, CA)

 FACTS:

 Plaintiff, Michael Ehirim brought suit upon Power Ford Torrance for wrongful termination based on racial harassment and discrimination allegations. Plaintiff claims that he was discriminated against and terminated from his employment as a salesman at Power Ford Torrance because he is African American.  Power Ford Torrance denied plaintiffs allegations contending that Plaintiff’s allegations were unfactual and evidence showed that Plaintiff in fact, abandoned his position.

 ARBITRATION:

 Defense verdict in favor of Power Ford Torrance.

De La Cruz v. Surf City Nissan

 

Plaintiff’s Counsel: Luis M. Avila

 

Defendant’s Counsel: Elizabeth L. Kolar

Customer sued dealership and various individual employees alleging that they falsely imprisoned her and caused her to suffer severe emotional distress as a result of a sales transaction that was never ultimately consummated. The customer claimed that as a result of the dealership’s conduct, she suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized for five days.

 The case was tried to a jury in front of Superior Court Judge James Crandall, Orange County Superior Court.

 The jury deliberated and returned with a defense verdict in favor of the dealership and the individually named employees.

Cochran v. I-10 Toyota

INVASION OF PRIVACY:

  1. Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
  2. Violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Reg B

ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff, Tammy Cochran

Robert Stempler, Esq. (Law Offices of Robert Stempler – Ontario, CA)

 Defendant, Power Ford Valencia

Elizabeth L. Kolar, Esq. (Kolar & Associates- Santa Ana, CA)

 FACTS:

 Plaintiff, Tammy Cochran filed suit against I-10 Toyota alleging that they violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by not providing her with a Notice of Adverse Action. She further alleged that they violated her right of privacy by disclosing a copy of her credit application to her husband’s attorney in an unrelated divorce proceeding. I-10 Toyota denied these allegations.

 JURY TRIAL:

 Defense verdict for I-10 Toyota following a successful Motion for Non-Suit.

QDOS, Inc. v. Kader, Fazliq

CASE TYPE:

Alleged identity theft; Misappropriation of funds

 ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff, QDOS, Inc.

Damian D. Capozzola, Esq. (Law Offices of Damian D. Capozzola – Rolling Hills Estates, CA)

 Defendant, The Auto Gallery

Elizabeth L. Kolar, Esq. (Kolar & Associates – Santa Ana, CA)

FACTS:

Plaintiff gave two business checks to co-defendant Fazliq Kader totaling $516,000 for the purchase of a Lamborghini Aventador.  Fazliq Kader was allegedly supposed to purchase the vehicle for QDOS but instead purchased it and registered it in his own name.  One year later, QDOS alleged that The Auto Gallery should have known that the vehicle was for QDOS instead of Fazliq Kader and had a duty not to sell him the car.  The jury disagreed and rendered a defense verdict for The Auto Gallery.  The Auto Gallery recovered its costs. 

JURY TRIAL: Defense verdict

Boutros v. Land Rover South Bay

COURT TRIAL: Defense verdict

 Plaintiff, Jack Boutros

Solomon Gresen, Esq. (Law Offices of Rheuban & Gresen – Los Angeles, CA)

 Defendant, Land Rover South Bay

Elizabeth L. Kolar, Esq. (Kolar & Associates – Santa Ana, CA)

 FACTS:

On or about December 24, 2007, Mr. Boutros purchased a new 2008 Land Rover Range Rover from Land Rover South Bay and alleged various violations regarding the sale and financing of his vehicle and sued for rescission.  DEFENSE VERDICT FOR DEALER

 

Enriquez v. GL Huntington Beach, LLC dba Surf City Nissan

BINDING ARBITRATION: Defense verdict for dealer

 Plaintiff, Luz Enriquez

William N. Blasser, Esq. (Blasser Law – Diamond Bar, CA)

Steven A. Simons, Esq. (Law Offices of Steven A. Simons – Granada Hills, CA)

 Defendant, GL Huntington Beach, LLC dba Surf City Nissan

Elizabeth L. Kolar, Esq. (Kolar & Associates – Santa Ana, CA)

 Plaintiff alleged the dealer failed to make certain disclosures at the time of sale.  Plaintiff further alleged that the deal was negotiated primarily in Spanish and that a Spanish translation contract should have been provided.  Lastly, Plaintiff alleged that the dealership forged her signature on various documents.  DEFENSE VERDICT AND AWARD OF COSTS TO DEALER.

 

Dhar v. AutoWest Honda Fremont

Dhar v. AutoWest Honda Fremont

Hon. Marshall I. Whitley – Alameda County Superior Court

JURY TRIAL: The jury awarded the Plaintiff only $5,000.00 instead of rescission

ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff, Ruchi Dhar

Scott Kaufman, Esq. (California Lemon Lawyers – Santa Clara, CA)

 

Defendant, AutoWest Honda Fremont

Elizabeth L. Kolar, Esq. (Kolar & Associates – Santa Ana, CA)

On February 4, 2006 Plaintiff, Ruchi Dhar purchased a new 2006 Honda Odyssey Touring model from Autowest Honda Fremont. Plaintiff alleges she specifically informed the dealership that she wanted a vehicle with 8 seats and was told an 8th seat could be added. Dealership denied any such representation. Plaintiff sued for rescission and punitive damages.