Fidel Hernandez Medina, et al. vs. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

Case Background

On April 04, 2022, a consumer protection lawsuit alleging breach of warranty was filed against Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. before the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. Judges Anne Richardson, David Sotelo, and Barbara A. Meiers presided over this case. [Case number: 22STCV11303]

Cause

Fidel Hernandez Medina and Patricia Hernandez, residents of Palmdale, California, were the Plaintiffs in this case. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., (“TMS”) a California corporation, was the Defendant. The case involved warranty issues related to a vehicle purchased by the Plaintiffs, covered by a written warranty from Toyota.

On August 23, 2021, the Plaintiffs bought a used 2019 Toyota Camry with VIN 4T1B11HK1KU732517. The sale included express warranties from Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. to maintain the vehicle’s performance or provide compensation for any failures. The Plaintiffs purchased the vehicle from Toyota of Lancaster, an authorized dealership, and relied on its assurances of a valid warranty.

At purchase, the vehicle had 35,720 miles on the odometer. The dealership assured the Plaintiffs that the factory warranty was still valid, including a 3-year/36,000-mile bumper-to-bumper warranty and a 5-year/60,000-mile powertrain warranty. Federal and state emissions warranties and the implied warranty of merchantability also applied.

However, the vehicle arrived with significant defects and developed additional issues over time. Defects included electrical problems, infotainment issues, fuel injection system faults, and engine problems. On October 7, 2021, after just 5,787 miles, the Plaintiffs brought the car to Toyota of Lancaster due to a malfunctioning radio display and engine noise. The technicians reset the engine values but did not resolve the issues.

Further visits in October and November 2021 showed continued problems with the radio display and a faulty 12-volt charger. By January 2022, after 16,101 miles, issues persisted with engine noise and fluctuating RPMs. Repairs were incomplete.

The Plaintiffs revoked acceptance of the sales contract. Under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the vehicle qualifies as “consumer goods,” used primarily for family purposes. The Plaintiffs, as buyers, sought to opt out of any class action settlements related to their vehicle’s defects.

Damages

Plaintiffs sought judgment against TMS for several claims. They requested general, special, and actual damages based on the trial evidence. Additionally, the Plaintiffs sought rescission of the purchase contract and restitution of all money spent. They also asked for compensation for the vehicle’s diminished value.

Plaintiffs desired incidental and consequential damages related to the defects. Furthermore, they requested a civil penalty amounting to twice their actual damages. They sought prejudgment interest at the legal rate and demanded reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses incurred during the suit. Lastly, the Plaintiffs asked for any further relief the Court deemed just and appropriate under the circumstances.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Fidel Hernandez Medina | Patricia Hernandez | Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Michael H. Rosenstein | Sepehr Daghighian | James P. Martinez
  • Defendant(s): Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Julian G. Senior | Stefanie G. Jo

Claims

The key claims were:

1. Breach of Express Warranty: Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. provided express warranties with the vehicle sale, promising to maintain its performance or offer compensation for failures. However, the vehicle had significant defects, including electrical, infotainment, fuel injection, emissions, and engine issues, which were not fixed despite multiple repair attempts.

2. Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act: The vehicle, classified as “consumer goods” under the Act, was used primarily for family purposes by Plaintiffs. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. failed to replace the vehicle or offer restitution as required by the Act. Plaintiffs sought a refund of the vehicle’s price, minus the amount for its use before the defects were first reported.

3. Breach of Implied Warranty: The vehicle purchase included implied warranties under the law. Nonconformities arose within the statutory period for the Implied Warranty of Merchantability, with additional latent defects emerging later. The vehicle did not meet trade quality standards due to multiple defects.

4. Violation of Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2(b): Civil Code section 1793.2 mandates that manufacturers maintain or authorize repair facilities to fulfill warranty terms. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. failed to commence and complete necessary repairs within a reasonable time frame. Despite multiple repair attempts, the vehicle was not brought into compliance with the warranty terms.

Defense

Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (“TMS”) denied the allegations brought against it. As part of its affirmative defenses, TMS claimed that any injuries or damages suffered by the Plaintiffs were caused by the misuse or improper use of the vehicle. TMS argued that the Plaintiffs’ misuse or failure to use the car correctly contributed to any loss, injury, or damage stated in the complaint. Consequently, TMS asserted that any recoverable damages should be reduced according to the extent of fault due to this misuse. TMS further contended that any damages experienced by the Plaintiffs were due to using the vehicle for purposes it was not intended for.

Jury Verdict

On February 26, 2024, a twelve-panel California jury returned the verdict in favor of Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. The jury found that a written contract existed between the parties. However, it was determined that the vehicle did not have defects covered by the warranty which impaired the vehicle’s use, value, or safety to a reasonable buyer in the Plaintiffs’ situation.

On March 08, 2024, Judge Anne Richardson entered a judgment consistent with the verdict, and the breach of warranty case was dismissed.

Court Documents:

Available upon request