Eli Bachar vs. Terry York Motor Cars, Ltd., a California Limited Liability Company, et al.

Case Background

On March 14, 2021, Eli Bachar filed a consumer protection lawsuit alleging violation of California consumer protection laws, including the Unfair Competition Law (California Business and Professional Code § 17200 et seq.), the False Advertising Act (California Civil Code § 17500 et seq.), and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (California Civil Code § 1770 et seq.).

The case was filed in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Los Angeles County, California. Judge Christopher K. Lui presided over the case. [Case number: 21STCV18290]

Cause

Defendant Terry York Motor Cars, Ltd. (doing business as Land Rover Encino), a California Limited Liability Company, sold various automotive services. Plaintiff Eli Bachar, a customer, filed claims against the defendants for deceptive and unfair marketing practices. Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange, a corporation based in Kansas, sold automobile insurance in California, including the Plaintiff’s policy, number 0195479135.

On December 13, 2019, the Plaintiff purchased the insurance based on Farmers’ representations. Farmers advertised its services through the “Farmers Insurance Hall of Claims,” assuring clients they would handle claims quickly. When the Plaintiff sought confirmation of full coverage, Farmers repeatedly assured him that they would process his claims efficiently. Unfortunately, these promises proved false, causing him significant stress.

On December 13, 2019, the Plaintiff purchased a 2020 Land Rover Range Rover. On September 2, 2020, the vehicle sustained damage. Upon contacting Farmers, the Plaintiff was told repairs would be covered. He inquired if Terry could handle the repairs, to which Terry confidently agreed, assuring him that COVID-19 would not cause delays.

However, from September 2 to October 15, 2020, both Terry and Farmers failed to provide timely updates. On October 15, the Plaintiff learned repairs had not yet started, despite previous claims they were underway. From October 15 to March 4, 2021, he continued to seek updates but the dealership misled him about the status of his vehicle. On March 4, he discovered that they had not replaced the engine as promised.

Despite ongoing demands for resolution, both Terry and Farmers ignored the Plaintiff’s requests, forcing him to file this claim after enduring months of misrepresentation and denial of access to his vehicle.

Damages

By misrepresenting the automobile and its related goods and services, Defendants charged consumers more. This led to economic harm for the Plaintiff and unjust enrichment for the Defendants. Despite demands for payment, Defendants, along with DOES 1-100, neglected and refused to pay any amount owed. As a result, an unpaid sum is now due to the Plaintiff, plus interest at ten percent (10%) per annum since Defendants breached their obligations.

According to Civil Code Section 3294, Terry’s actions regarding its goods and services demonstrated a clear intent to cause unnecessary delays. Terry knowingly misled the Plaintiff about the characteristics, uses, and benefits of their services. This conduct aimed to deprive the Plaintiff of property or legal rights, inflicting injury in the process. Such behavior was despicable and placed the Plaintiff in a situation of cruel and unjust hardship.

Terry’s actions showed a conscious disregard for the Plaintiff’s rights, justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages. This misconduct exemplified a pattern of deceitful practices that ultimately harmed the Plaintiff financially and emotionally. Therefore, the Plaintiff sought appropriate compensation for these damages, highlighting the need for accountability and justice in this matter.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Eli Bachar
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Natan Davoodi
  • Defendant(s): Terry York Motor Cars, Ltd. | Farmers Insurance Exchange
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Christopher S. Maile | Heather M. Mckeon

Claims

  1. Violations of Consumers Legal Remedy Act: Terry misled consumers about the condition and benefits of automotive services. They concealed damage and underestimated repair costs to manipulate the Plaintiff’s decisions.
  2. Unfair Competition Law Violations: Terry engaged in unlawful business practices that contradicted consumer protection policies, harming Plaintiff and others.
  3. False Advertising Act Violations: Terry made misleading statements about insurance coverage and automotive services, leading Plaintiff to believe in false promises regarding repairs and communication.
  4. Trespass to Chattel: Plaintiff owned a 2020 Land Rover but was deprived of its use for over nine months without consent. Terry interfered with Plaintiff’s possession and misrepresented repair timelines.
  5. Negligent Repair: After receiving the vehicle post-repair, Plaintiff discovered it was not fixed properly. Terry misdiagnosed issues and delayed necessary repairs, prioritizing cost savings over safety.
  6. Misrepresentation: Terry’s representative falsely claimed that repairs were almost complete when they had not started. They also misled about delays, attributing them to COVID when that was untrue.
  7. Breach of Contract: Terry and the insurance company (Farmers) failed to fulfill obligations under the insurance policy by not covering the full repair costs.

Defense

The Defendants refuted the allegations made against them. They asserted a defense of comparative negligence. They claimed that all actions described in the Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint were performed with the Plaintiff’s full consent and knowledge. Additionally, the Defendants argued that Plaintiff participated in these actions and concurred with them. Thus, they maintained that any alleged wrongdoing occurred under the Plaintiff’s agreement.

Jury Verdict

On August 06, 2024, the jury returned a defense verdict after determining that Defendant Farmer had not failed to pay the policy benefits owed to Plaintiff Eli Bachar.

On September 12, 2024, Honorable Christopher K. Lui’s final judgment consistent with the verdict was entered.

Court Documents:

Available upon request