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

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

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.4^th 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.