Sherman Bahr dba Video One Repair, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Canon USA Inc.
Published: Oct. 25, 2014 | Result Date: Jul. 10, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 2:13-cv-05259-GAF-AJW Bench Decision – Defense
Court
USDC Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Thomas D. Mauriello
(Mauriello Law Firm APC)
Kolin C. Tang
(Miller Shah LLP)
James C. Shah
(Miller Shah LLP)
Defendant
Kent J. Schmidt
(Dorsey & Whitney LLP)
Facts
Sherman Bahr doing business as Video One Repair, filed a class action against Canon USA Inc.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that he serviced and repaired camcorders in California since 1994, and specialized in camcorders manufactured by defendant. Plaintiff alleged that, until recently, he had been able to obtain replacement parts from defendant. However, obtaining replacements became increasingly difficult in the past two years that by December 2012, plaintiff alleged that he was completely unable to obtain the parts necessary to repair defendant's camcorder models. After his efforts to work with defendant proved futile, he sued the company alleging that defendant prevented independent service and repair facilities from obtaining replacement parts necessary to fix its camcorders in violation of California Civil Code Section 1793.03 and improperly tied the sale of replacement parts with the provision of repair services in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 16720 et seq.
Plaintiff asserted causes of action under the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for defendant's refusal to provide him with replacement camcorder parts, the California Cartwright Act for defendants tying access to replacement parts with the provision of repair services, and the California Unfair Competition Law for defendant's unfair policy of refusing to supply replacement parts.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Defendant also moved to strike plaintiff's class allegations.
Result
The court granted Canon's motion to dismiss. As a result, defendant's motion to strike the class allegations was denied as moot. However, the court allowed plaintiff to amend his complaint.
Other Information
Plaintiff has appealed the dismissal of his complaint to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. FILING DATE: July 22, 2013.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390