Facts

According to plaintiffs' counsel, the Williams purchased a 2004 Bentley Arnage from defendant dealer, Rusnak Pasadena. Due to problems with the vehicle, the dealer replaced the vehicle with another 2004 Bentley Arnage. The replacement vehicle failed to conform to the express warranty, but defendant manufacturer, Bentley Motors, Inc., refused to replace or repurchase the vehicle. Plaintiffs filed an action for breach of express warranty and implied warranty.

According to defense counsel, after plaintiffs Alvin E. Williams and Judith M. Brown-Williams had a new 2004 Bentley Arnage replaced at their request, they demanded that Bentley Motors Inc. repurchase the subject 2004 Arnage received in replacement and pay substantial additional sums.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
According to plaintiff's counsel, the plaintiffs contended they were forced to hire a chauffeur daily for approximately three years due to their dissatisfaction with the subject vehicle. They further contended that the required use of their limousine for personal purposes deprived them of the ability to receive a profit of $2,000 per day for renting the vehicle out to third parties.

According to defense counsel, in the original trial, plaintiffs contended that the replacement Bentley failed to conform to the express warranty and that defendants breached their duty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiffs contended that they were entitled to a replacement or repurchase of their vehicle, as well as to incidental damages suffered as a result of defendant's breach and refusal to replace/repurchase the vehicle.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
According to plaintiffs' counsel, in the original trial, defendants contended that they satisfied their obligations under the Song-Beverly Act and that plaintiffs were not entitled to a repurchase or replacement of their vehicle. Defendants further contended that plaintiffs' damages were unreasonable and unnecessary. In the new trial on damages, defendants contended that plaintiffs' payments to the driver for their limousine were unreasonable and unnecessary, and not covered under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. (Defendants' motion in limine to exclude these payments as non-allowable damages were denied.)

According to defense counsel, the defendants contended that the damages sought by plaintiffs were not recoverable; were not reasonably incurred; and the claims and documents supporting them were fraudulent.

Settlement Discussions

According to plaintiffs' counsel, defendants served a C.C.P. section 998 offer to compromise, which was not accepted by plaintiffs. After the first trial, the parties attended an MSC where plaintiffs demanded restitution of the money paid for the vehicle, and the amounts paid to the driver of the limousine. Additional damages were sought, pending pre-trial motions to determine the admissibility of such damages. Defendants offered less than their original C.C.P. section 998 offer and plaintiffs rejected the offer. After pre-trial motions limited the damages to recover of the driver for the limousine, plaintiffs demanded $440,000 and defendants offered $350,000. No settlement was reached. According to defense counsel, the plaintiffs did not respond, accept or reject a C.C.P. section 998 statutory offer to compromise, made for repurchase of the subject vehicle, plus attorney's fees. The offer was made Nov. 27, 2006. This offer was renewed at two subsequent mediations and at the MSC. The plaintiffs did not make a definitive counter-offer. At the MSC, plaintiffs demanded $3 million, plus unspecified lost profits, attorney's fees and costs for approximately four years of litigation.

Damages

According to plaintiffs' counsel, in the original trial, plaintiffs sought restitution of the amounts paid for the vehicle (down payment, monthly car payments, insurance, registration fees) and incidental damages (recovery of the payments to the driver). Prior to the new trial, the parties stipulated to a "partial judgment" as to the down payment on the vehicle, the monthly payments paid by plaintiffs for the vehicle, and the loan payoff amount. The only damages submitted to the jury were for insurance, registration and the payments to the driver for alternative transportation. According to defense counsel, the plaintiffs sought refund of their purchase price, a civil penalty, chauffeur fees, lost profits and attorney's fees in this Song-Beverly consumer warranty act complaint.

Result

The first trial resulted in a 12-0 verdict for plaintiffs, finding the defendants liable for their breach of the express warranty on the vehicle. Due to an error in the verdict as to the amount of damages, a new trial was granted on the issue of damages only. In the new trial, the jury found that the breach of the express warranty was not a factor in causing the damages that were submitted to the jury, thus returning a defense verdict. The parties stipulated to "partial judgment" in plaintiffs' favor. After original trial in June 2007, defendant's motion for new trial was granted as to the issues of whether damages were incurred, and, if so, in what amounts. After 40 minutes of deliberation, jury awarded $0 in damages to plaintiffs.

Other Information

According to plaintiffs' counsel, defendants contend that due to the jury verdict following the new trial, the stipulated damages (regarding amounts for the vehicle) are no longer recoverable. Plaintiffs contend that such damages remain recoverable pursuant to the stipulation between the parties. The court has scheduled a hearing to review this issue. According to defense counsel, the plaintiffs did not participate in Bentley Motors Inc.'s pre-litigation third-party dispute resolution program. Defendant automobile distributor intends to bring a motion for costs based on its C.C.P. section 998 statutory offer to compromise. Defendant automobile retailer has filed a motion for attorney's fees. The court has reserved the right to exercise any equitable powers relative to damages. FILING DATE: Nov. 4, 2005.

Deliberation

0.6 hours

Length

six days