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
Song-Beverly Act
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

Goharik Yeghiazaryan v. Hyundai Motor America Inc.

Published: Jun. 4, 2021 | Result Date: May 5, 2021 | Filing Date: Oct. 15, 2020 |

Case number: 2:20-cv-10590-DSF-PLA Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Dale S. Fischer

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Hovanes Margarian
(The Margarian Law Firm)

Shushanik Margarian
(The Margarian Law Firm)


Defendant

Soheyl Tahsildoost
(Theta Law Firm LLP)

Sasha Bassi
(Theta Law Firm LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff Goharik Yeghiazaryan filed a lawsuit against Defendant Hyundai Motors America over a 2018 Hyundai Tucson that was purchased on August 29, 2018 by Plaintiff. Plaintiff asserted a causes of action for breach of implied warranty and breach of express warranty pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that his automobile engine for his 2018 Hyundai Tucson was defective because it stalled. Plaintiff contended the defects substantially impaired the use, value and safety of his vehicle. Plaintiff further contended although the vehicle was presented for repair one time, the defects were not adequately remedied and thus Defendant breached the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied Plaintiff's contentions and moved for dismissal on the grounds that Plaintiff's Complaint failed to assert allegations that the alleged defect with the vehicle was present at delivery or occurred within the one-year time period after the date of the delivery. Moreover, defendant contended that plaintiff only alleged one repair attempt and that a breach of express warranty claim requires at least two attempts.

Result

The court ruled in favor of the defense and dismissed the case with prejudice.


#137179

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

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