Facts

On April 22, 2017, plaintiff Gerber Castillo, 35, purchased a new 2017 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring Edition. Over the next five months, he took the vehicle to Mazda authorized dealers five times with complaints of gas pedal vibration, unintended activation of automatic braking system, inoperable backup camera, steering wheel whining noise, inoperable driver's seat memory, malfunctioning brake auto hold, inoperable auto lock system, malfunctioning emergency brake, inoperable sunroof, malfunctioning rear backup sensors, malfunctioning Bluetooth system, malfunctioning interior lights, inoperable rear cross traffic alert, malfunctioning turn signal, a loud hum noise, inoperable Pandora radio, and frozen audio display screen. During that time, the vehicle was in the shop 36 days. Plaintiff then requested a repurchase of the vehicle from Mazda, which was denied. Plaintiff alleged that the aforementioned problems with the vehicle continued and that there were additional problems, including inoperable daytime running lights and inoperable key detection. In all, plaintiff claimed that there were over 30 problems with the vehicle.

On Sept. 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Mazda Motor of America, Inc. for breach of express and implied warranty. Plaintiff sought restitution in the amount of $33,000.00, a civil penalty of $66,000.00, as well as attorney's fees and costs.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that the subject vehicle suffered from numerous defects, including defects which posed serious safety concerns. This included the alleged repeated activation of the automatic braking system and malfunctioning rear cross traffic alert. Plaintiff contended that Mazda failed to repair any of the alleged defects with the vehicle and that the defects substantially impaired the use, value, and safety of the vehicle.

Plaintiff further contended that Mazda's denial of the pre-litigation claim was a willful violation of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and sought a civil penalty of two times actual damages.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that there were no defects with the subject vehicle. Mazda had a Regional Technical Specialist inspect the vehicle five times, and neither he nor any of the Mazda dealers could find a defect with the vehicle. Defendant further contended that the vehicle was fit for ordinary use and that there was no defect which substantially impaired the use, value, or safety of the vehicle.

Mazda denied that it had willfully violated the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and that plaintiff was entitled to a civil penalty. Defendant contended that, at the time plaintiff's claim was denied, no defects had been found with the vehicle and the vehicle did not qualify for repurchase/replacement under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Settlement Discussions

On April 15, 2018, plaintiff demanded $5,500 plus attorney's fees and costs by motion. On August 14, 2018, plaintiff demanded $14,000 plus $91,000 in attorney's fees and costs. On April 30, 2020, plaintiff demanded $32,000 plus attorney's fees and costs by motion. On July 2, 2020, plaintiff served a CCP section 998 Offer to Compromise, for $35,000 plus attorney's fees and costs by motion. On January 29, 2021, plaintiff again served a CCP section 998 Offer to Compromise, for $35,000 plus attorney's fees and costs by motion. On October 27, 2021, plaintiff demanded $35,000 plus attorney's fees and costs by motion. On July 24, 2018, defendant served a CCP section 998 Offer to Compromise for $30,000.

Result

Defense verdict

Other Information

Defendant is seeking to recover costs from plaintiff in the amount of $34,195.

Deliberation

One hour

Poll

10-2 (express warranty); 12-0 (implied warranty)

Length

Nine days