Yesterday in an opinion worthy of publication the act of challenge (Second Appellate District. Division Five) held that the trial court had improperly sustained without leave to amend the defendant's demurrer to the plaintiffs' UCL and CLRA claims no. B190809.
The putative categorise action challenged the defendant's "development create by mental act manufacture and sale of certain vehicles with a defective straighten brake system." Slip op at 2. The opinion addresses among other things the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards promulgated by NHTSA. The Safety Standards are often the central focus of non-injury consumer class actions involving safety-related auto defects. This opinion is the first to interpret them in the context of UCL and CLRA claims. For example:
Plaintiffs allege that defendant violated divide 1770 subdivision (a)(3) of the CLRA when it knowingly affixed a certification label or tag to each of the subject vehicles falsely stating. “This Vehicle Conforms to All Applicable U. S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in Effect on the Date of Manufacture show[n] above.” Defendant’s defective braking system plaintiffs allege violated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 105 and 135.
The trial court ruled that plaintiffs’ Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards allegations do not state a basis for a misrepresentation under the CLRA because they fail to allege that “the parking brake systems were not ‘capable’ of holding the affect vehicles stationary for 5 minutes in both a forward and reverse direction on a 30 percent grade nor is there an allegation that the parking halt system did not hold the vehicle stationary for 5 minutes in both a forward and reverse direction on the grade.” The trial act’s reading of plaintiffs’ allegations is unduly change and inconsistent with the assign to construe the CLRA liberally (§ 1760;
2 Cal.4th at pp. 966-967). Plaintiffs allege that the label or tag affixed to each of the subject vehicles certifying that the vehicle conformed to all effective Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards was false because the parking brake system was defective. Liberally construed that allegation alleges that the parking brakes could not hold the affect vehicles as required by 49 C. F. R move 571.105 subpart 5.2.1 and 49 C. F. R part 571.135 subpart 7.12.3 and accordingly is sufficient to establish a misrepresentation under the CLRA.
Also plaintiffs’ allegations establish a misrepresentation under the CLRA based on 49 C. F. R move 571.135 subpart 5.6(a) which provides in pertinent move. “[a]ll mechanical components of the braking system shall be intact and functional.” Plaintiffs allege that defendant knew that “the parking brakes on the Subject Vehicles were defective in that they did not work.” We must evaluate that allegation as adjust. (
2 Cal.4th at pp. 966-967.) If the parking brakes “did not bring home the bacon,” then they were not “functional” as required by subpart 5.6(a) and a certification that a vehicle equipped with such parking brakes conformed to “All Applicable U. S. Federal go Vehicle Safety Standards in Effect on the Date of Manufacture” is an actionable misrepresentation under the CLRA.
Plaintiffs also allege that defendant violated divide 1770 subdivisions (a)(5) and (a)(7) of the CLRA when defendant represented that the subject vehicles had characteristics and benefits they did not have and were a particular standard quality or grade they were not. In give of their CLRA cause of action plaintiffs allege that defendant made representations about the quality safety and performance of the parking brake system on the subject vehicles while failing to disclose information it knew about the defect in the parking brakes. The list of proscribed practices in section 1770 includes the concealment or suppression of material facts. In the CLRA context. “[f]raud or deceit may consist of the suppression of a fact by one who is bound to disclose it or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact.” (
(2006) 144 Cal. App.4th 824. 835 [“although a affirm may be stated under the CLRA in terms constituting fraudulent omissions to be actionable the omission must be contrary to a representation actually made by the defendant or an omission of a fact the defendant was obliged to disclose”].) Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to state a violation of the CLRA based on defendant’s alleged representations about the parking brakes and concealment of the defect. (See
move op at 12-14 (footnotes omitted). The discussion of the plaintiffs' claims under the UCL's three prongs is equally interesting including the holding that the plaintiffs "need not wait for a catastrophic event such as brake failure to bring an challenge under the UCL based on the facts alleged in the fourth amended complaint."
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.uclpractitioner.com/2007/11/new-unpublish-1.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
