This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Consumers Legal Remedies Act
Lemon Law

Deborah Leonhardt v. Sunrise Ford of North Hollywood and Does 1 to 25

Published: Jul. 2, 2016 | Result Date: Feb. 25, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC546010 Verdict –  $75,000

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Robert F. Brennan
(Law Offices of Robert F. Brennan APC)


Defendant

Michael S. Geller
(Law Office of Michael Geller Inc)


Facts

Plaintiff Deborah Leonhardt sued Sunrise Ford of North Hollywood, in connection with the purchase of a 2010 Kia Forte.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that defendant failed to disclose that the 2010 Kia Forte that it sold her had a prior accident history. Plaintiff discovered the vehicle had substantial collision and possible frame damage after taking it to a mechanic and a Kia dealership. She claimed that she specifically asked defendant about the vehicle's prior crash history and was told by defendant that the vehicle had not been involved in any collisions. Plaintiff further contended that she relied on defendant's representations about the car's condition and that she would never have purchased the vehicle had she known about its true condition.

Plaintiff asserted causes of action for violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and breach of implied warranties pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the Magnuson Moss Consumer Warranty Act.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant denied that the vehicle had extensive damage and claimed that it was safe. It also argued that plaintiff was lying and that she was the cause of any damage to the vehicle.

Result

The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $75,000. The matter ultimately settled post-trial for an undisclosed amount.

Other Information

FILING DATE: May 16, 2014.


#108255

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390