Skip navigation.
Hablamos Espanol
(800) 4NO-LEMON
(800) 466-5366
Call (800) 4-NO LEMON for a Free Case Review
10085 Carroll Canyon Rd, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92131

Let us review your case

First Name Last Name Phone ( ) - Email Case Info/Questions

Categories

Recent Posts

Meta

Archive for the ‘Class Action’ Category

« Older Entries

California Supreme Court Refuses To Review Ruling Holding Claims Under the Automobile Sales Finance Act are Subject to Four Year Statute of Limitations

Thursday, December 15th, 2011

Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP’s Auto Fraud Legal Center is pleased to announce the California Supreme Court has refused to review a trial court decision holding actions for rescission under the Automobile Sales Finance Act are subject to a four-year statute of limitations.  The Supreme Court issued its order denying a petition for review filed by Santa Maria Ford and Wells Fargo Dealer Services on December 14, 2011, in Santa Maria Ford v. Superior Court (Martinez), Case Number S197395.  In Martinez, Santa Maria Ford and Wells Fargo Dealer Services filed motions for summary judgment arguing Mr. Martinez’s claim under the Automobile Sales Finance Act was subject to either a one-year, or three-year, statute of limitations.  In August 2011, the trial court agreed with Mr. Martinez the appropriate statute of limitations for an action for rescission of a written contract is four years pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 337.  Santa Maria Ford and Wells Fargo Dealer Services filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District, which summarily denied the petition.  The Supreme Court then denied Santa Maria Ford and Wells Fargo Dealer Services’ petition for review.

In the underlying class action, Mr. Martinez alleges Santa Maria Ford and Wells Fargo Dealer Services violated the Automobile Sales Finance Act by failing to separately disclose fees on purchase
contracts, and labeling fees as “not applicable” when in fact the customer was charged for the fees.  The proposed class covers all persons who purchased vehicles from Santa Maria Ford between May 26, 2006, and May 26, 2010.

For more information on this, or any of Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP’s class action lawsuits against car dealerships and financial institutions, contact Hawk Barry or Angela Smith at 800-466-5366.

Posted in Auto Fraud, Automobile Sales Finance Act, California Auto Fraud, Class Action | No Comments »

Four Class Actions Allege Price Fixing, Seek $5 Million in Damages

Thursday, October 27th, 2011

An international investigation of price fixing has led to four class-action lawsuits alleging that a scheme to raise the price of wire harnesses in turn raised the price of vehicles, Crain’s Detroit Business reported on October 18, 2011. Court documents show the class action suits seek damages exceeding $5 million.

According to Crain’s, the suits stem from an investigation of the global wire harness business that began in 2010, with the U.S. Department of Justice and officials from the European Union and Japan being involved in the investigations. The Justice Department hit Furukawa with a $200 million fine, and Crain’s said three of its executives are scheduled to plead guilty for their role in alleged global price-fixing scheme. The Federal Bureau of Investigation raided several suppliers in its antitrust investigation, but the company’s North American subsidiary, American Furukawa, took the first blow as a result of the 20-month investigation.

We have posted before how price fixing creates profit for some companies by ultimately driving up the cost for the consumer. The cost of the wire harness in your vehicle is certainly not a common form of auto dealership fraud, but antitrust laws are supposed to protect Americans from price fixing between manufacturers and retailers. State and federal laws are in place to make sure you are not deceived in your car purchase, and if you believe that a dealership violated California lemon law, contact our California lemon law attorneys today to get a free evaluation of your case.

Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP — California lemon law lawyers

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Auto Fraud, California Auto Fraud, California Lemon Law, Class Action, Lemon Law, State Laws, Technology and Laws | No Comments »

Judge Tosses Bellwether Toyota Acceleration Case

Monday, October 10th, 2011

A federal judge in California dismissed a bellwether case against Toyota Motor Corp. that was supposed to be the first to stand trial out of hundreds of sudden acceleration complaints filed in federal court, the Associated Press reported on September 29, 2011. U.S. District Judge James V. Selna dismissed a case brought by the families of two people killed in a crash in Utah in 2010 after finding a federal warranty claim in the lawsuit failed to meet a required jurisdictional threshold of $50,000 in damages. Selna said that under federal law, the plaintiffs could not count potential personal injury or punitive damages to reach the requirement.

Mark Robinson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told Bloomberg L.P. News that the ruling will not prevent the case from being tried or from remaining in federal court. Robinson said the warranty claim, brought under the federal Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, was aimed at the dealer and isn’t essential to the lawsuit against Toyota.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Paul Van Alfen and passenger Charlene Lloyd. Van Alfen died when his 2008 Toyota Camry unexpectedly accelerated and crashed into a wall while Lloyd died the following day, but Van Alfen’s wife and son who were also injured in the crash are suing as well. The Van Alfen case was selected in June as the first test case to be used by the court and both lawyers to test evidence and liability theories before moving on to other trials or limiting future litigation in the sudden acceleration claims before Selna.

Do you believe the judge ruled correctly in this case? Our California lemon law attorneys want you to share your opinions with us. Many cases of auto dealership fraud can involve warranty issues. If you believe a car dealer misled you about your warranty or violated some other aspect of California lemon law in your last automobile purchase, contact one of our California lemon law lawyers today to get a free evaluation of your case.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Auto Fraud, Car Defect, Car Recall, Class Action, Product Defect, Technology and Laws | No Comments »

Another Trial Court Affirms Fisher v. DCH Temecula Imports LLC Still Valid Law in California State Courts to Prevent Forced Arbitration and the Waiver of Class Action Claims Against Dealerships and Financial Institutions

Wednesday, October 5th, 2011

The Auto Fraud Legal Center is pleased to report the Ventura County Superior Court, the Honorable David R. Worley presiding, denied  Rusnak/Westlake BMW and BMW Financial Services’ motion to compel arbitration.  In January 2011,  Eric Sherf filed a class action lawsuit against  Rusnak/Westlake BMW and BMW Financial Services on behalf of  a putative class of car purchasers who were overcharged California Tire Fees.  The BMW vehicles Mr. Sherf and putative class members purchased were equipped with four run-flat tires, but the dealership charged the customers California Tire Fees for five tires.

Judge  Worley agreed with Plaintiff that California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act is an arbitration-neutral statute, and that the contract defense that private parties can not waive unwaivable statutory rights was not pre-empted by the Federal Arbitration Act and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion in April 2011.   Thus, Fisher v. DCH Temecula Imports, LLC (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 601, which held the arbitration clause in vehicle retail installment sale contracts self-destructed if the class action waiver was invalid for any reason, required denial of Defendants’ motion.  Judge Worley also held the California Supreme Court’s decisions in Broughton v.
Cigna Healthplans (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1066, prohibiting the arbitration of claims for injunctive relief under the CLRA, and Cruz v. PacifiCare
Health Sys. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 303 , prohibiting the arbitration of claims for injunctive relief under the Unfair Competition Law, remain valid in cases in California state court.

For information on this and the Auto Fraud Legal Center’s other class actions on behalf of California
car purchasers, contact Hawk Barry or Angela Smith at 800-466-5366.

Tags: ,
Posted in Arbitration, Auto Fraud, Automobile Sales Finance Act, California Auto Fraud, Class Action | No Comments »

« Older Entries

©2010–2012 Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP

Law Firm Website Design, Law Firm Website Hosting and Law Firm Marketing by Attorneys Online, Inc.