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.

 

 

Tucker v. Martin Chevrolet (YC041309)

Hon. Bob Hight, Los Angeles County Superior Court

MOTOR VEHICLE:

Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act

ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff, Michael Eric Tucker

Rene Korper, Esq. (Norman Taylor & Associates, Glendale, CA)

Defendant, General Motors Corporation

Matthew Proudfoot, Esq. (Gates, O’Doherty, Gonter & Guy)

Defendant, Martin Chevrolet

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

FACTS & CONTENTIONS:

Plaintiff, Tucker purchased a used 1998 Chevrolet 1500 truck from Martin Chevrolet. Mr. Tucker alleged that the car had various mechanical issues and that GMC and Martin Chevrolet breached various express and implied warranties to him.  He sued General Motors Corporation and Martin Chevrolet under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  Defendants denied Plaintiff’s allegations.

OUTCOME:

Defense verdict for dealership, Martin Chevrolet.

Finamore, Ted v. Galpin Motors, Ford Motor Company (LC065545)

Hon. Stanley M. Weisberg, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Van Nuys

CONSUMER LAW:

Fraud/Song-Beverly Warranty Act

ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff, Ted Finamore-Rene Korper (Norman Taylor & Associates, Glendale)

Defendant, Galpin Motors- Elizabeth L. Kolar (Kolar & Associates, Santa Ana);

Defendant, Ford Motor Co.-Bob McPhail (Bowman & Brooke, Gardena)

FACTS & CONTENTIONS:

The Plaintiff, Ted Finamore purchased a new Mercury Marauder from Galpin Lincoln Mercury and filed suit under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Song-Beverly Warranty Act.  He alleged that the vehicle he purchased had sustained material body and frame damage prior to being sold to him and that the vehicle had non-conformities.  In fact, the vehicle’s door had the left front door repainted but was well within the statutory safe harbor of 3% or $500 of the MSRP whichever is greater.  He also alleged that the vehicle suffered from various non-conformities which the defendants denied.

DAMAGES:

Plaintiff claimed $65,000 in damages for rescission plus attorney’s fees.

SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS:

The Plaintiff demanded $65,000 including rescission and attorney’s fees.  The defense offered $2,500 including attorney’s fees.

JURY TRIAL:

Jury Trial lasted 7 days ending in a 12-0 defense verdict for Defendant, Galpin on the CLRA claim and 9-3 defense verdict on the Song-Beverly Warranty Act claims as to Galpin and Ford Motor Company.

VERDICT:

Defense Verdict

Hays v. Anderson Chevrolet Chrysler Plymouth

Santa Clara County Superior Court case no. 1-03-CV003923

Hon. Leslie Nichols

CONSUMER LAW:

Breach of Contract

Violations of Song-Beverly Warranty Act (Lemon Law)

Unfair Competition Law

Fraud/Misrepresentation

ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff, Linda Hays was represented by William C. Dresser

(Law Offices of William C. Dresser)

Defendant, Anderson Chevrolet was represented by Elizabeth L. Kolar, Esq.

(Kolar & Associates)

FACTS & CONTENTIONS:

On January 9, 2002, Ms. Hays met with Anderson Chevrolet’s Fleer Car Manager and ordered a 2002 Chevrolet Camaro with specific options including a 6 way power seat.  On February 19, 2002, Anderson Chevrolet had the vehicle delivered to Ms. Hays.  Upon sitting in the car, Ms. Hays noticed the vehicle did not come equipped with a driver’s power seat.  Ms. Hays also claimed there was a “rippling” in the windshield which caused a distortion making the vehicle difficult to drive.

Anderson Chevrolet replaced the windshield at no cost to Ms. Hays.  Ms. Hays claimed the replacement windshield was no better than the original and that it still had the same distortion.  The dealership refused to replace it a second time because Ms. Hays had approved the replacement windshield.  Ms. Hays claimed that the replacement windshield was still unacceptable and had a windshield installed through a glass company at a cost of approximately $500.00.

As for the power seat, Anderson Chevrolet offered Plaintiff a full refund of the purchase price of the vehicle which she refused.  Thereafter, Anderson Chevrolet offered to retrofit the seat with an after-market power seat at its cost which Ms. Hays also refused.  Lastly, Anderson Chevrolet offered Ms. Hays a replacement vehicle in a darker color with a power seat.  She also refused the latter option.

Plaintiff alleges that she has a pre-existing back condition which required her to have a power seat in her vehicle and claims that she had suffered an exacerbation of her back injury.  Anderson Chevrolet denied that Plaintiff had suffered any damages and that Ms. Hays failed to mitigate her damages.

DEMANDS/OFFERS:

Plaintiff demanded $32,000 pre-trial.  Defendant made a settlement offer of $7,000 to Linda Hays pre-trial.

OUTCOME-DEFENSE VERDICT:

Defendant’s brought a motion for non-suit which was granted as to all causes of action except breach of contract.  After a one week jury trial regarding the breach of contract issue, the jury found in favor of Anderson Chevrolet and Anderson Chevrolet was awarded its costs of over $5,000.00.

Hart v. AutoWest Dodge, et al. 145 Cal.App.4th 495

Placer County Superior Court case no. SCV16942

Hon. Larry D. Gaddis

California Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate District case no. C050384

Justice Richard Sims III

Presiding Justices, Coleman Blease and Fred Morrison

CONSUMER LAW:

Violation of Vehicle Leasing Act

Unfair Competition Law

ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff/Appellant, Lisa Hart- Sharon L. Kinsey, Esq. (Kinsey Consumer Law Center)

Defendant/Respondent, AutoWest Dodge – Elizabeth L. Kolar, Esq. (Kolar & Associates)

FACTS:

On April 27, 2000, Plaintiff, Lisa Hart leased a 2000 Dodge Durango (Vehicle 1) from defendant dealership for $430 per month.  The next day, she allegedly “discovered” it did not have a third back seat.  On April 29, 2000, Plaintiff returned the vehicle to Defendant and signed a new lease contract for another 2000 Dodge Durango (Vehicle 2) which had a third back seat.  Plaintiff alleged she was not told of the price increase regarding the lease of the 2nd vehicle.  In December 2002, plaintiff was unable to maintain the monthly payments and voluntarily returned the vehicle to terminate the contract.  On December 1, 2003, Plaintiff filed her Complaint for damages of $50,000.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:

Plaintiff alleged that AutoWest Dodge violated the Vehicle Leasing Act and Business and Professions Code §17200 by failing to disclose certain aspects of the transaction.  Plaintiff demanded rescission, punitive damages and attorney fees in the amount of $100,000.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS:

AutoWest Dodge fully disclosed the terms of the transaction to Plaintiff who was trying to get out of the deal because she had buyer’s remorse and could no longer afford the vehicle.  Defendant offered Plaintiff $1,500 to settle.

OUTCOME-DEFENSE VERDICT:

The case came before the court on April 4, 2005 to start a jury trial.  After several motions in limine, AutoWest Dodge moved for Non-Suit based on Plaintiff’s inability to provide evidence supporting her claims.  Defendant’s Motion was granted and the court dismissed Plaintiff’s case.  AutoWest Dodge then made a Motion to Recover its attorney fess in the amount of $51,580.16.  The court granted AutoWest Dodge’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Judgment was entered in AutoWest Dodge’s favor in the amount of $51,580.16.

On August 1, 2005, Plaintiff appealed the judgment.  The Appellate Court affirmed the ruling and awarded AutoWest Dodge its attorney’s fees and costs totaling $51,580.16 against Plaintiff.

Manahan v. Hayward Dodge, et al. (CGC-03-426028)

Hon. Peter J. Busch-San Francisco County Superior Court

CONSUMER LAW

Violation of Automobile Sales Finance Act

Violation of Business and Professions Code §17200

Fraud/Deceit

ATTORNEYS

Plaintiff, Alessandro Manahan: George D. Berglund, Esq.

Defendants, AutoNation, Hayward Dodge and Triad Financial: Elizabeth L. Kolar, Esq. (Kolar & Associates)

FACTS

Plaintiff purchased a used 2001 Hyundai X6300 from Defendant, Hayward Dodge in July of 2002.  The vehicle was financed through Triad Financial.  Mr. Manahan alleged that Defendants made misrepresentations to him during the sales transaction such as the dealership telling him that he was buying a new 2002 car when, in fact, he was purchasing a used 2001 car, failing to separately itemize the insurance binder, failing to disclose alleged prior accident damage and failing to give him a rebate.  Mr. Manahan sought to rescind the contract.

PRIOR SETTLEMENT DEMANDS

Defendants offered Plaintiff $2,500.

DEFENSE VERDICT

Jury found for Defendants on all causes of action.  The Trial Court found that Mr. Manahan was not entitled to any relief.  As the prevailing parties, Defendants were awarded $178,427.64 in attorney’s fees and costs.

Duplantis v. Fullerton Dodge, Inc. (04CC11590)

Hon. Ron Bauer – Orange County Superior Court

EMPLOYMENT

Unlawful and Unfair Business Practices

Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

Breach of Contract

Unpaid Wages in Violation of Labor Code §201

Fraud

False Promise

Negligent Misrepresentation

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff, Wayne Duplantis

Charles Matheis, Esq. (BEAM, BROBECK & WEST, LLP)

Defendant, Fullerton Dodge, Inc.

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

FACTS:

Plaintiff, Wayne Duplatis was an employee of Fullerton Dodge Inc. who sued the dealership for wrongful termination based on the allegation that he was offered employment at the dealership for as long as he desired. The dealership alleged he was an at-will employee. He further alleged that Fullerton Dodge engaged in “payment packing” resulting in his termination based upon retaliatory motives when he complained. Fullerton Dodge, Inc. denied all of Plaintiff’s allegations.

JURY TRIAL:

Plaintiff demanded over $500,000. Verdict for Plaintiff of $13,000.