For purposes of this chapter:
(a)“Consumer” means the purchaser, other than for purposes of resale, of a motor vehicle, a lessee of a motor vehicle, any person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred during the duration of an express warranty applicable to that motor vehicle, and any person entitled by the terms of the warranty to enforce the obligations of the warranty.
(b)“Manufacturer” means any person, firm, or corporation,
whether resident or nonresident, that manufactures or assembles motor vehicles for sale or distribution in this state. In the case of motor vehicles not manufactured in the United States, the term “manufacturer” shall also include any person, firm, or corporation that is engaged in the business of importing motor vehicles.
(c)“Dealer” means any person, firm, or corporation selling or agreeing to sell in this state one or more new motor vehicles under a retail agreement with a manufacturer, manufacturer branch, distributor, distributor branch, or agent of any of them.
(d)“Adjustment program” means any program or policy that expands or extends the consumer’s warranty beyond its stated limit or under which a manufacturer offers to pay for all or any part of the cost of repairing, or to reimburse consumers for all or any part of the cost of repairing, any condition that may
substantially affect vehicle durability, reliability, or performance, other than service provided under a safety or emission-related recall campaign. “Adjustment program” does not include ad hoc adjustments made by a manufacturer on a case-by-case basis.
(e)“Motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle, excluding motorcycles, motor homes, and off-road vehicles, which is registered in this state.
(f)“Lessee” means any person who leases a motor vehicle pursuant to a written lease which provides that the lessee is responsible for repairs to the motor vehicle.
(g)“Service bulletin” means any notice issued by a manufacturer and filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration relating to vehicle durability, reliability, or performance.
Notes of Decisions
Cholakyan v. Mercedes-benz USA, LLC, 796 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (C.D. Cal. 2011).
· cites it 3× “On August 10, 2010, plaintiff filed this putative class action against Mercedes-Benz, USA, LLC (“MBUSA”) claiming (1) violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), California Civil Code § 1750 et seq.; (2) violations of California’s Secret Warranty Law,…”
Ehrlich v. BMW of North Am., LLC, 801 F. Supp. 2d 908 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
· cites it 3× “Code § 17200, based upon a violation of California’s Secret Warranty Law, Cal. Civ.Code § 1795.90 et seq.; (3) violation of the UCL for acts other than violating the Secret Warranty Law; and (4) breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal.”
Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 749 F. Supp. 2d 980 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Here, plaintiffs allege that Ford’s After-Warranty Assistance(“AWA”) was an “adjustment program” as defined under California’s Secret Warranty Law (see TAC ¶¶ 87, 91, 105(a)); see also, Cal. Civ.Code § 1795.90 et seq., and, consequently, that Ford had a duty to disclose such…”
In re Myford Touch Consum. Litig., 46 F. Supp. 3d 936 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
“” Cal. Civ.Code § 1795.90(d). However, Plaintiffs’ secret warranty claim is viable to the extent Plaintiffs assert that Ford’s Campaign 12M01 constituted an adjustment program.”
Mui Ho v. Toyota Motor Corp., 931 F. Supp. 2d 987 (N.D. Cal. 2013).
“, pursuant to California’s Secret Warranty Law, Cal. Civ.Code §§ 1795.90 et seq.; (3) violation of the UCL on grounds other than violation of California’s Secret Warranty Law; (4) fraud by omission; (5) breach of implied warranty pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty…”
Cholakyan v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 281 F.R.D. 534 (C.D. Cal. 2012).
“On August 10, 2010, plaintiff Tigran Cholakyan filed this putative class action against Mercedes-Benz, USA, LLC (“MBUSA”) alleging (1) violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), California Civil Code § 1750 et seq.; (2) violation of California’s Secret…”
Lax v. Toyota Motor Corp., 65 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
“The Sancho Complaint also alleges violation of California’s Secret Warranty Law ( Cal. Civ. Code § 1795.90 et seq.) and of Hawaii's Uniform Deceptive Practices Act ( Haw.”
Richard Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 462 F. App'x 660 (9th Cir. 2011).
“Cal. Civ.Code § 1795.90(d). The law further provides that an adjustment program “does not include ad hoc adjustments made by a manufacturer on a case-by-case basis.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1795.90(d) — 5 cases
In re Myford Touch Consum. Litig., 46 F. Supp. 3d 936 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
“” Cal. Civ.Code § 1795.90(d). However, Plaintiffs’ secret warranty claim is viable to the extent Plaintiffs assert that Ford’s Campaign 12M01 constituted an adjustment program.”
Ehrlich v. BMW of North Am., LLC, 801 F. Supp. 2d 908 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
“Code § 17200, based upon a violation of California’s Secret Warranty Law, Cal. Civ.Code § 1795.90 et seq.; (3) violation of the UCL for acts other than violating the Secret Warranty Law; and (4) breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal.”
Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 749 F. Supp. 2d 980 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
“Here, plaintiffs allege that Ford’s After-Warranty Assistance(“AWA”) was an “adjustment program” as defined under California’s Secret Warranty Law (see TAC ¶¶ 87, 91, 105(a)); see also, Cal. Civ.Code § 1795.90 et seq., and, consequently, that Ford had a duty to disclose such…”
Richard Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 462 F. App'x 660 (9th Cir. 2011).
“Cal. Civ.Code § 1795.90(d). The law further provides that an adjustment program “does not include ad hoc adjustments made by a manufacturer on a case-by-case basis.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.