This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/22/2021 at 18:41:03 (UTC).

ARMANDO DE LA PAZ ET AL VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA E

Case Summary

On 01/19/2018 ARMANDO DE LA PAZ filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA E. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JOHN P. DOYLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0869

  • Filing Date:

    01/19/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JOHN P. DOYLE

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

DE LA PAZ ARMANDO

DE LA PAZ MELISSA

GOMEZ MELISSA

GOMEZ MELISSA AKA MELISSA DE LA PAZ

Respondents and Defendants

SYMES CADILLAC INC.

JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC

LAND ROVER PASADENA

DOES 1 TO 10

PASADENA LAND ROVER

SYMES CADILLAC INC. DBA LAND ROVER PASADENA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

MIKHOV STEVEN B. ESQ.

WIRTZ RICHARD M.

MIKHOV STEVE BORISLAV

Respondent and Defendant Attorney

TAKAHASHI BRIAN ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Status Conference; Trial Setting Conference; Conference Re: M...)

2/4/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Status Conference; Trial Setting Conference; Conference Re: M...)

Memorandum - MEMORANDUM RE SANCTIONS SOUGHT IN RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PLAINTIFF FAILURE TO APPEAR

11/19/2021: Memorandum - MEMORANDUM RE SANCTIONS SOUGHT IN RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PLAINTIFF FAILURE TO APPEAR

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE VSC READINESS)

10/5/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE VSC READINESS)

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

10/5/2021: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE)

10/12/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF THEODORE DORENKAMP IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10/28/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF THEODORE DORENKAMP IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Separate Statement

10/28/2021: Separate Statement

Motion for Summary Judgment

10/28/2021: Motion for Summary Judgment

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAIN...)

11/5/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAIN...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

4/28/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

4/28/2021: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE (ALL-PURPOSE; TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE))

6/15/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE (ALL-PURPOSE; TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE))

Case Management Statement

7/27/2021: Case Management Statement

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/3/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice - NOTICE DISASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

8/3/2021: Notice - NOTICE DISASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE (ALL-PURPOSE; CONFERENCE RE: SETTING OF A V...)

8/11/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE (ALL-PURPOSE; CONFERENCE RE: SETTING OF A V...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE (ALL-PURPOSE))

1/8/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE (ALL-PURPOSE))

Case Management Statement

12/22/2020: Case Management Statement

175 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/07/2022
  • Hearing03/07/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department 58 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2022
  • Hearing03/02/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department 58 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2022
  • Hearing01/18/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 58 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2021
  • Hearing12/14/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 58 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2021
  • Docketat 10:15 AM in Department 58; Order to Show Cause Re: (Imposition of Sanctions against Plaintiff Armando De La Paz for His Failure to Appear at the 10/12/2021 Voluntary Settlement Conference; Status Conference (All-Purpose)) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Imposition of Sanctions Against Plain...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2021
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2021
  • DocketDeclaration (of Theodore Dorenkamp in Support of Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2021
  • DocketMotion for Summary Judgment; Filed by Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 58; Voluntary Settlement Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
254 More Docket Entries
  • 01/25/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT 1. VIOLATION OF SONG-BEVERLY ACT -BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2018
  • DocketDEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Armando De La Paz (Plaintiff); Melissa Gomez (Plaintiff); Melissa De La Paz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC690869    Hearing Date: January 08, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: January 8, 2020

Case Name: De La Paz, et al. v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, et al.

Case No.: BC690869

Motion: Motion to Depart from CACI Verdict Form

Moving Party: Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Armando De La Paz and Melissa Gomez

Tentative Ruling: The Motion is denied.

This is an action relating to alleged defects in a 2013 Land Rover Range Rover Sport SC. On January 19, 2018, Plaintiffs filed the operative Complaint for (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act—breach of express warranty, (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act—breach of implied warranty, and (3) violation of Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2.

Defendant seeks for the Court to depart form CACI Verdict Form no. 3204 and adopt its proposed verdict form. Defendant argues CACI Verdict Form no. 3204 (1) omits that implied warranties have a one-year duration, (2) improperly provides for restitution when Plaintiffs can only seek diminution in the value of the subject vehicle, and (3) omits the requirement that Plaintiffs must have timely notified Defendant of a revocation of the subject vehicle.

CACI Verdict Form no. 3204 provides,

1. Did [name of plaintiff] buy a[n] [consumer good] [manufactured by/from] [name of defendant]?

If your answer to question 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If you answered no, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

2. At the time of purchase, was [name of defendant] in the business of [selling [consumer goods] to retail buyers] [manufacturing [consumer goods]]?

If your answer to question 2 is yes, then answer question 3. If you answered no, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

3. Was the [consumer good] of the same quality as those generally acceptable in the trade?

If your answer to question 3 is no, then answer question 4. If you answered yes, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

4. What amount is [name of plaintiff] entitled to receive as restitution to [him/her] for the [consumer good]?

(a) Warranty Duration

Defendant’s proposed question pertaining to warranty duration is improper because it fails to recognize that a latent defect discovered after the one-year warranty period can be actionable. (Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1310.)

Further, Defendant’s proposed question impermissibly “suggests the ‘implied warranty of merchantability can be breached only if the vehicle manifests a defect that is so basic that it renders the vehicle unfit for its ordinary purpose of providing transportation.’ ” (Brand v. Hyundai Motor America (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1528, 1546.)

To the extent Defendant challenges whether a latent defect breached its implied warranty within the one-year duration of the warranty, there may be a need to modify CACI Verdict Form no. 3204. But, Defendant’s proposed question is inadequate.

(b) Restitution

Defendant argues that Gavaldon v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1246 implicitly held that restitution is available only for violations of Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2) and that the remedy for a breach of implied warranty is diminution in value.

The Court rejects these contentions. Civ. Code § 1794 provides,

(a) Any buyer of consumer goods who is damaged by a failure to comply with any obligation under this chapter or under an implied or express warranty or service contract may bring an action for the recovery of damages and other legal and equitable relief.

(b) The measure of the buyer’s damages in an action under this section shall include the rights of replacement or reimbursement as set forth in subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2, and the following:

(1) Where the buyer has rightfully rejected or justifiably revoked acceptance of the goods or has exercised any right to cancel the sale, Sections 2711, 2712, and 2713 of the Commercial Code shall apply.

(2) Where the buyer has accepted the goods, Sections 2714 and 2715 of the Commercial Code shall apply, and the measure of damages shall include the cost of repairs necessary to make the goods conform.

Further, Comm. Code § 2711 (see Civ. Code § 1794(b)(1)) provides that where there has been a rejection of goods, the purchaser may recover the purchase price—i.e., restitution.

(c) Notice

Defendant argues that to the extent restitution is allowed, CACI Verdict Form no. 3204 omits a notice requirement for rejection imposed by the Commercial Code. (See, e.g., Comm. Code § 2607.)

Section 2602, along with section 2601, gives a buyer a right to “reject” nonconforming goods prior to acceptance and thereby avoid any obligation to pay the purchase price. (U.Com.Code, §§ 2601, 2602, subd. (2)(c).) The rejection must occur “within a reasonable time after their delivery or tender” of the goods. (Id., § 2602, subd. (1).) Section 2607 requires a buyer of goods to notify the seller of any breach within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered the breach. (Id., § 2607, subd. (3)(A).)

These notification requirements, however, do not apply to an action brought under the Song–Beverly Act.

(Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1307 (emphasis added).)

In sum, the Motion to Depart from CACI Verdict Form no. 3204 is denied.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where SYMES CADILLAC INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA SYMES CADILLAC INC is a litigant

Latest cases where Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer TAKAHASHI, BRIAN