Facts

On February 23, 2006, Zarui Khachatryan and Armen Apayan leased a 2006 Toyota Sienna from Toyota of Glendale. Khachatryan was a 38 year-old mother of three that worked full time taking care of her elderly parents. The van was acquired to use as transportation for the large family. Less than a month after purchase, the vehicle began experiencing problems with stalling and the check engine light illuminating. A Toyota dealer performed repairs. Over the next two years, plaintiff complained of continued activation of the check engine light, stalling, hard starting and hesitation on acceleration and the vehicle was the subject of five additional repairs for these conditions. Khachatryan reported that the vehicle had to be in for repair five times over two years. In April 2008, after being notified that the van would need to undergo a sixth repair, Khachatryan, through her attorney, requested a repurchase of the car under the California Song-Beverly Act, seeking return of all lease payments, registration and attorney's fees. Toyota declined to repurchase the vehicle.

Khachatryan filed a complaint against Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and Toyota Motor Corporation on June 13, 2008 for breach of express/implied warranties under the California Song-Beverly and federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Acts, breach of the implied warranty of fitness, failure to promptly repurchase the vehicle, failure to commence repairs within a reasonable time and conversion.

At the close of evidence, Toyota filed a motion to dismiss the Magnuson-Moss cause of action, which the court granted on the grounds that Khachatryan had not participated in Toyota's arbitration program. The court denied, without prejudice, a motion to dismiss the implied warranty claims, which was based upon Toyota's assertion that that Khachatryan failed to proffer sufficient evidence to support an award under that theory. Khachatryan voluntarily dismissed Toyota Motor Corporation and her conversion claim in exchange for a costs waiver. The case went to the jury on four causes of action: 1) Toyota's failure to repurchase, 2) the failure to repair within a reasonable amount of time, 3) California express warranty claim, and 4) California implied warranty claim.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Khachatryan alleged Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc. breached express and implied warranties under the California Song-Beverly Act and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Khachatryan claimed that her vehicle suffered from a defect in materials or workmanship and that Toyota failed to repair the defects after a reasonable number of attempts. She offered expert testimony, which concluded that the problems with the car stemmed from a manufacturing issue and that the van had not been tampered with. Khachatryan further claimed that the stalling and no start conditions constituted a serious safety hazard for her family. Finally, Khachatryan claimed that Toyota's failure to repurchase the vehicle constituted a conversion of her property, warranting the imposition of punitive damages.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Toyota claimed that many of the problems with plaintiff's vehicle were associated with outside influences. This included at least two episodes where electrical connectors had been disconnected. The conditions under which some of the failures occurred were also inconsistent with plaintiff's description of events. Toyota contended that there was not a defect in materials or workmanship entitling plaintiff to lemon law relief. It further claimed that it was justified in denying plaintiff's pre-litigation demand for lemon law relief and was not guilty of conversion.

Settlement Discussions

Khachatryan demanded $87,000, plus unspecified attorney fees.

Damages

Khachatryan claimed damages in the form of the van's cost, $29,135, as well as a civil penalty of $58,270. She also sought $100,000 in punitive damages, attorney fees, interest and costs.

Result

The jury returned a verdict for Toyota on the failure to repurchase, failure to repair and express warranty claims. The jury found for plaintiff on the implied warranty claim, awarding $5,976.13 for diminished value of the vehicle. However, the jury found Khachatryan did not timely revoke acceptance of the vehicle. Following the verdict, Toyota renewed its motion to dismiss plaintiff's implied warranty claim, on the grounds that plaintiff's failure to timely revoke acceptance of her vehicle rendered the jury's verdict unsupported by the record, as plaintiff had not put on any evidence of diminished value. The court granted the motion and on November 18, 2009, entered judgment in favor of Toyota and awarded costs in the amount of $2,640.

Deliberation

10 hours

Poll

8-0

Length

eight days