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.

Breach of Contract
Fraud
Negligence

Arther Masaoka v. George Pendleton, an individual; Nan Pendleton, an individual; George Pendleton and Nan Pendleton dba Discount Import Parts, et al

Published: Oct. 18, 1997 | Result Date: Aug. 19, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 767889 –  $0

Judge

Dennis Keough

Court

Orange Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Sidney Greenbaum


Defendant

Domenic Puccio II


Experts

Plaintiff

Lou Nanos
(technical)

Terry O'Connor
(technical)

Facts

Between January 1993, through the present, plaintiff Masaoka operated an auto repair shop. Defendant Pendleton operated an auto parts store. Defendant Python Fuel Injection Co. (Python) was a company that remanufactured fuel injections. Between January 1993, and August 1995, plaintiff purchased fuel injectors from defendant Python through defendant Discount Import Parts Specialist (DIPS). Sometime on or about Aug. 20, 1995, all sets of fuel injectors purchased by the plaintiff developed leaks. The plaintiff, for fear of his customer's safety, took it upon himself to replace fuel injectors in all vehicles. Upon return of the allegedly defective fuel injectors, the plaintiff alleged defendant Pendleton accused the plaintiff of being a "crook and a thief," among other things. The plaintiff further alleged that defendant Pendleton went to plaintiff's business and made slanderous remarks about the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants based on fraud, negligent misrepresentation, slander, breach of contract and negligence theories of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a settlement demand for $20,000. The defendants made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $2,500.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed damages of 270 hours at $55 to $75 per hour, plus $4,500 in parts replacement, damages associated with damage to reputation and loss of business opportunities and punitive damages.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately one year after the case was filed.

Deliberation

1+ hours

Poll

11-1

Length

seven days


#79743

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

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