108 Cal.App.5th 367
Cal. Ct. App.2025Background
- Plaintiffs purchased a used 2015 Subaru Impreza from SAI Long Beach B, Inc. (Long Beach BMW) for approximately $41,000, including a down payment and financing through a retail installment sales contract.
- The purchase included a CARFAX vehicle report, a representation of manufacturer’s warranty (from Subaru), and an optional service contract provided by a third party.
- After 26 days, the car developed engine trouble; Subaru and the service contract provider both declined to cover the repairs, citing maintenance record issues and policy limitations, respectively.
- Plaintiffs sued for breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, CLRA violations, and UCL/fraud claims; they settled with Subaru but proceeded against the dealership.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the dealership and awarded costs and attorney fees; plaintiffs appealed the rulings, especially the attorney fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied warranty liability under Song-Beverly Act | Sale conveyed unexpired manufacturer’s warranty, triggering retailer’s implied warranty duty | Warranty was from Subaru, not dealership; dealership gave no express warranty at sale | No implied warranty from dealership; summary judgment affirmed |
| CLRA: Misrepresentation/concealment | Dealership misrepresented condition, warranty, and service contract scope | No misrepresentations made; plaintiffs received and read actual contract terms | No evidence of actionable misrepresentation; summary judgment |
| UCL and related statutory claims | Dependent on success of other warranty and CLRA claims | Failure of other claims defeats UCL claims | No triable issue; summary judgment affirmed |
| Attorney fees to prevailing defendant (dealer) | Fee-shifting consumer statutes only allow plaintiff (consumer) recovery, not defendants | Section 1717 & contract allow recovery of attorney fees to prevailing party, including defendant | Contractual provision doesn’t override statutes; fees reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC, 17 Cal.5th 189 (Cal. 2024) (Retailers of used goods liable for implied warranty only if they issue an express warranty at the time of sale)
- D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners, 11 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1974) (Self-serving declarations cannot contradict clear deposition admissions on summary judgment)
- Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 17 Cal.4th 985 (Cal. 1998) (Prevailing sellers may recover costs but not attorney fees unless statute expressly allows)
- Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (Cal. 1998) (Entitlement to attorney fees depends on independent legal basis)
- State Dept. of Public Health v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 940 (Cal. 2015) (Later, more specific statutes outweigh earlier, general ones in attorney fee provisions)