Lopez v. Nissan North America, Inc.
135 Cal. Rptr. 3d 116
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- California adopts NIST Handbook 44 tolerances for odometers; 4% tolerance for passenger-vehicle odometers.
- Odometers at issue allegedly overregister by about 2%, within tolerance, but plaintiffs claim they are not “correct.”
- Plaintiffs sued Nissan North America and Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. on multiple consumer-protection and contract theories.
- Trial court granted summary judgment holding odometers are “correct” under §12500(c) and that deliberate miscalibration was not shown.
- Court held odometers are “correct” if within 4% tolerance and not deliberately miscalibrated; the 4% tolerance provides a safe harbor from UCL/CLRA claims.
- Court affirmed summary judgment resulting in dismissal of plaintiff claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition of correct odometer under §12500(c) | Plaintiffs: must center to zero as much as possible | Nissan: 4% tolerance and no deliberate miscalibration suffice | Odometers within 4% and not deliberately miscalibrated are correct |
| Safe harbor effect of §12500(c) on UCL/CLRA | Safe harbor should not bar claims if miscalibration occurred | Safe harbor bars claims for correct odometers | §12500(c) provides safe harbor for correct odometers; UCL/CLRA claims barred when odometers meet tolerance and are not miscalibrated |
| Evidence of deliberate overregistration | Nissan designed to overregister mileage | Evidence shows centering on zero where possible; no deliberate overregistration | No triable issue; Nissan did not deliberately overregister |
| Impact on other claims (false advertising, misrepresentation, etc.) | Claims survive despite safe harbor | Claims fail because odometers are correct | Dismissed or defeated to extent based on correct-odometer rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999) (safe harbor doctrine limits UCL when statute permits conduct)
- Alvarez v. Chevron Corp., 656 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2011) (safe harbor under Cel-Tech applies to California regulation)
- Goodman v. Lozano, 47 Cal.4th 1327 (Cal. 2010) (independently review text when interpreting statute)
- Schnall v. Hertz Corp., 78 Cal.App.4th 1144 (Cal. App. 2000) (limits to CLRA claims where safe harbor applies)
- Bourgi v. West Covina Motors, Inc., 166 Cal.App.4th 1649 (Cal. App. 2008) (safe harbor under statutory framework for disclosure/claims)