Charles Kuniyoshi v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA Inc.
Published: Sep. 22, 2012 | Result Date: Aug. 14, 2012 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 37-2011-00091257-CU-BC-CTL Verdict – Defense
Court
San Diego Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Michael E. Lindsey
(Law Office of Michael E. Lindsey)
Defendant
Sean D. Beatty
(Beatty & Myers LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Daniel Calef
(technical)
Defendant
Harold Clyde
(technical)
James Daher
(technical)
Facts
On July 10, 2009, plaintiff Charles Kuniyoshi purchased a 2010 Toyota Tundra 4x4 from Kearny Mesa Toyota. During the test drive before purchasing the vehicle, Plaintiff claimed that he experienced a "pull to the right" and the dealer attempted to align the vehicle before Plaintiff left the dealer. Plaintiff claimed that the vehicle continued to pull to the right and over the next 10 months, two different Toyota dealers were unable to fix the problem within a reasonable number of repair opportunities.
As a result, in May 2010, Plaintiff stopped using the vehicle, claiming that it was unsafe to drive.
On Aug. 10, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, alleging causes of action under the Song-Beverly Act, Magnuson-Moss Consumer Warranty Acts and conversion.
Plaintiff later dismissed the federal court case and re-filed in state court.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that the subject vehicle suffered from defects in materials and workmanship that substantially impaired its use, value and safety. Specifically, the vehicle suffered from a defective steering/suspension system, which caused a severe pull to the right.
Plaintiff claimed that Toyota should have repurchased the vehicle and Toyota's failure to do so was a willful violation of the Song-Beverly Act. He sought a civil penalty to punish Toyota and deter future conduct.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Toyota contended that the vehicle did not have a defect in the steering/suspension system and there was no abnormal pull to the right. The vehicle drove normally and denied Plaintiff's claims that there was a substantial impairment to the use, value or safety of the vehicle. Toyota also contended that the dealer's diagnosis of the vehicle was appropriate.
Toyota denied that it had willfully violated its obligations under the law or that Plaintiff was entitled to a civil penalty.
Settlement Discussions
On July 19, 2012, Plaintiff served a CCP section 998 offer to compromise in the amount of $40,000, with the Court to determine attorney's fees and costs. Toyota made no offer.
Damages
Plaintiff sought restitution ($40,000), incidental and consequential damages, punitive damages, a civil penalty ($80,000), costs and attorney's fees.
Result
Defense verdict.
Other Information
The vehicle had been parked in his driveway for over two years at the time the case went to trial. Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. filed a cost bill in the amount of $13,097.
Deliberation
one hour and 45 minutes
Poll
12-0
Length
six days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390