MacQuiddy v. Mercedes-Benz USA CA2/8
233 Cal. App. 4th 1036
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Rand MacQuiddy bought a 2010 Mercedes‑Benz E550; the car intermittently would not start and underwent multiple repair visits in 2011–2012.
- MacQuiddy sued Mercedes‑Benz under the Song‑Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Magnuson‑Moss, seeking repurchase (rescission/restitution) and a civil penalty for willful failure to comply with the Act.
- Mercedes‑Benz admitted it failed to conform the vehicle to warranties and admitted entitlement to repurchase/restitution; parties stipulated a restitution amount of $68,948.07 at trial, so only the willfulness/civil‑penalty issue was tried.
- Mercedes‑Benz served a California Code of Civil Procedure § 998 offer to repurchase subject to the car being “in an undamaged condition, save normal wear and tear,” and to pay plaintiff’s fees and costs as described in the offer; MacQuiddy rejected it.
- The trial court denied MacQuiddy’s motion to compel broad discovery and granted a protective order preventing two PMK depositions; a jury found Mercedes‑Benz did not willfully fail to comply.
- Posttrial, the court denied MacQuiddy attorney fees under Civil Code § 1794(d), awarded Mercedes‑Benz costs, and reduced MacQuiddy’s costs based on the § 998 offer; MacQuiddy appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court’s denial of discovery and protective order for PMK depositions | Denial prevented meaningful pretrial discovery and prejudiced his ability to prove willfulness | Mercedes‑Benz said liability was admitted so discovery was unnecessary and plaintiff hadn’t made required pre‑suit demand | Even if discovery rulings were erroneous, MacQuiddy failed to show prejudice; affirmed as to judgment on merits |
| Entitlement to attorney fees under Song‑Beverly (prevailing party) | MacQuiddy argued he was the prevailing party because he received a net monetary recovery and thus should get fees under §1794(d) | Mercedes‑Benz argued prevailing‑party analysis under the fee statute is pragmatic; plaintiff did not achieve main litigation objective (civil penalty) | Trial court did not abuse discretion in finding MacQuiddy not the prevailing party under §1794(d); denial of fees affirmed |
| Validity of the § 998 offer | MacQuiddy argued the offer was invalid/ambiguous and thus could not cut off costs | Mercedes‑Benz argued the offer complied with §998 and tracked statutory restitution terms | The §998 offer was ambiguous because it conditioned repurchase on the car being “in an undamaged condition,” an undefined subjective term; offer invalidated |
| Costs award (effect of invalid §998) | MacQuiddy argued he was a prevailing party for costs under CCP §1032 because he obtained stipulated monetary restitution | Mercedes‑Benz relied on the (invalidated) §998 to claim post‑offer costs and to obtain costs award | Because the §998 offer was invalid, it could not bar MacQuiddy’s costs or justify Mercedes‑Benz’s costs award; trial court’s costs order reversed and remanded for recalculation without regard to §998 |
Key Cases Cited
- Duale v. Mercedes‑Benz USA, LLC, 148 Cal.App.4th 718 (summary of Song‑Beverly lemon‑law framework)
- Wohlgemuth v. Caterpillar Inc., 207 Cal.App.4th 1252 (use pragmatic test to determine prevailing party under fee‑shifting statute)
- Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc., 144 Cal.App.4th 140 (prevailing‑party analysis guided by practical litigation objectives)
- National Computer Rental, Ltd. v. Bergen Brunswig Corp., 59 Cal.App.3d 58 (party can recover uncontested relief yet not be prevailing party on litigated issues)
- Chen v. Interinsurance Exchange of Automobile Club, 164 Cal.App.4th 117 (standard for reviewing validity of §998 offer; offers must be sufficiently definite)