55 Cal.App.5th 305
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiffs leased a new 2014 Jaguar F‑Type in May 2014; over ~3 years they returned the car multiple times for a window "one‑touch" bounce issue and a roof leak; repairs intermittently resolved symptoms. Plaintiffs sued in January 2017 alleging breach of express and implied warranties under the Song‑Beverly Act.
- At trial the jury found no breach of the express warranty and answered the single implied‑warranty liability question in defendant's favor (no window defect in the first year rendering the car unfit).
- The special verdict form mistakenly did not instruct the jurors to stop after the liability question, so the jury continued, found plaintiffs revoked acceptance, and awarded rescission damages of $26,023.68.
- Judgment for plaintiffs was entered and a clerk’s notice of entry was mailed. Defendant moved to vacate the judgment and alternatively for JNOV; the trial court granted both bases and entered judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: the clerk’s notice did not trigger the 15‑day deadline under CCP §664.5 (so defendant’s motion was timely), the damages finding was inconsistent with the special verdict and justified vacatur under CCP §663, and there was insufficient evidence to support implied‑warranty liability in the first year (JNOV proper).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of motion to vacate/JNOV | Clerk’s mailed notice started the 15‑day clock, so defendant’s §663/§629 motion was untimely | Clerk’s notice did not comply with Van Beurden/§664.5; no party served a written notice of entry; motion was timely | Clerk form did not affirmatively state it was mailed “upon order of the court” or “under §664.5”; Van Beurden controls — defendant’s motion was timely |
| Consistency of verdict / validity of original judgment | The jury’s later answers (revocation, damages) cure any defect in question phrasing and support the judgment for plaintiffs | Jury found no liability on the sole implied‑warranty liability question; subsequent damage answers cannot create liability; judgment inconsistent with special verdict | Verdict inconsistent: where liability was found against defendant, damages cannot stand; trial court properly vacated original judgment under CCP §663 |
| JNOV / sufficiency of evidence for implied‑warranty breach | Evidence showed latent defect (manufacturing problem with seals/brackets) that manifested later, so implied warranty could be breached despite manifestation after one year | No substantial evidence the window defect existed in the first year or resulted from a latent manufacturing defect; repairs and testimony did not establish latent defect | No substantial evidence that the one‑touch defect existed during the first year or was latent from manufacture; JNOV was proper |
| Waiver / party fault for defective verdict form | Defendant drafted the verdict form and failed to object before discharge, so it waived the right to challenge | The defect was inadvertent, mutual, and not a tactical failure to object; waiver doctrine inapplicable | No waiver where failure to object was not a tactical advantage; court corrected the mistaken verdict under Woodcock authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Beurden Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc., 15 Cal.4th 51 (clerk’s mailed notice triggers statutory deadlines only if it affirmatively states it was mailed “upon order by the court” or “under §664.5”)
- Palmer v. GTE California, Inc., 30 Cal.4th 1265 (clarifies Van Beurden requirement for clerk’s notice under §664.5)
- Maynard v. Brandon, 36 Cal.4th 364 (time limits for new‑trial motions are jurisdictional; §473 cannot cure jurisdictional time bars)
- Woodcock v. Fontana Scaffolding & Equip. Co., 69 Cal.2d 452 (trial court may interpret and correct special verdicts in light of pleadings, evidence, and instructions)
- Shapiro v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Co., 52 Cal.App.4th 722 (trial court authority to correct mistaken verdicts under §663)
- Isip v. Mercedes‑Benz USA, LLC, 155 Cal.App.4th 19 (implied‑warranty fitness for ordinary purpose can include safety and freedom from substantial defects)
- Brand v. Hyundai Motor Am., 226 Cal.App.4th 1538 (merchantability requires reasonable suitability for ordinary use, not perfection)
- Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., 174 Cal.App.4th 1297 (latent defects may breach implied warranty if present at time of sale)