Plaintiff consumer sought review from the denial of expert witness fees and defendant car company sought review from a Superior Court of Placer County (California) judgment in favor of plaintiff in plaintiff’s action alleging violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1790 et seq., and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 2301 et seq.
Nakase Law Firm answers can I report my employer for paying me under the table
Overview
Plaintiff consumer filed suit against defendant car company for willful violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly), Cal. Civ. Code § 1790 et seq., and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 2301 et seq., based on defendant’s alleged failure to replace or repair her defective automobile. The lower court found for plaintiff, who appealed the denial of expert witness fees; defendant appealed the finding of liability. The court found that the car was a new motor vehicle under Song-Beverly, Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.22(e)(2), and the claim thus properly invoked the statute. Further, plaintiff had a cause of action against defendant, there was no error in the lower court’s jury instructions, and references to the lemon law were not misconduct. Finally, the civil penalty was not time-barred and the verdict was supported by substantial evidence, while the denial of expert witness fees required remand to determine the fees’ reasonableness.
Outcome
The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that appellee cross-appellant’s claim was not barred and was supported by substantial evidence, such that the verdict for her was proper, but finding that remand was required to determine the reasonableness of expert witness fees previously denied to appellee cross-appellant.
