Skip to main content

Section 998’s Cost-Shifting Provisions May Apply When Case Ends in Settlement

By Chariese Solorio, Sarah M. Nakamoto, and Kina Wong* A divided court in Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 385, as modified on denial of reh’g (May 9, 2023), review filed (June 20, 2023) recently held that the cost-shifting penalty provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 apply when a case […]

| 6 min read

Component-Part Manufacturers Are Not Required to Indemnify Retail Sellers Under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Unless Express Warranty Is Provided

By Chariese Solorio, Sarah M. Nakamoto, and Anthony Pimentel* The California Court of Appeal in Mega RV Corp. v. HWH Corp. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1318 held that component-part manufacturers are not obligated to indemnify retail sellers under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1792 of the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the “Act”) unless they […]

| 3 min read

Purchasers of Vehicles from Private Party Sellers Have No Standing Under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act

By Chariese Solorio, Sarah M. Nakamoto, and Madeline Ward* In Dagher v. Ford Motor Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 905, the plaintiff purchased a used vehicle in a private sale from the original purchaser. The vehicle had over 12,500 miles and two years left on its five-year express manufacturer’s warranty. Id. at 912. After the purchase, […]

| 2 min read

California Supreme Court Clarifies Possible Lemon Law Damages

By Chariese Solorio, Sarah M. Nakamoto, and Olivia LaCasto* In Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2020) 9 Cal.5th 966, the California Supreme Court expanded the possible damages that are recoverable under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the “Act”) to include registration renewal and nonoperation fees as incidental damages if such fees were “incurred after the […]

| 3 min read

California Supreme Court Limits Consumer Lemon Law Protection to Vehicles Purchased in California

By Sarah M. Nakamoto, Chariese Solorio, and Paige Sorensen* In Cummins, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 478, 483, the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of “whether a buyer who resides in California may bring suit against a manufacturer under the [Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty] Act when the buyer purchased the vehicle in another […]

| 4 min read

A Deeper Dive into FDA Draft Guidance on the Remanufacturing of Medical Devices

In the medical device industry, there exists a longstanding divide between device manufacturers (i.e., those who design, manufacture, fabricate, or process a finished device) and the third-party entities that service the devices (i.e., those that maintain, restore, refurbish, or repair a finished device after it has been distributed, for purposes of returning the device to […]

| 7 min read

United States Supreme Court Tackles Personal Jurisdiction

Under current United States Supreme Court precedent, for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a manufacturer like Ford, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the court has either general or specific jurisdiction. General jurisdiction is only established where the defendant’s connection to the forum state is so systematic and continuous that the defendant is considered […]

| 5 min read