Facts

Plaintiffs Emmanuel and Margaret Katakis purchased a 2007 Toyota Sequoia from Folsom Lake Toyota on Dec. 23, 2006. They immediately began experiencing problems with abnormal/excessive wear on the right rear tire. Within the first 3,600 miles, plaintiffs took the vehicle to the dealer at least seven times for tire wear concerns. The dealer allegedly told plaintiffs there was nothing wrong with the car. Despite this, the wear allegedly continued and, over the next five years, plaintiffs took the car to the dealer approximately 17 more times with complaints of tire wear. During the course of these visits, the dealership aligned the car six times, replaced the ball joints and the front struts. The dealership also replaced the tires. Despite the repairs, plaintiffs claimed that the abnormal tire wear continued.

In July 2013, plaintiffs made a demand to Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. for repurchase of the vehicle. The claim was denied.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a lawsuit against Toyota for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs claimed the subject vehicle had a defect that caused abnormal/excessive wear of the right rear tire. The defect was alleged to have existed since the purchase of the vehicle, and was never corrected despite at least 25 visits to the Toyota dealership for the concern. Plaintiffs also claimed that, in addition to tire wear, the vehicle experienced stability problems during driving, and would "slide" around turns.

As a result of the alleged defective vehicle, plaintiffs testified they stopped driving the truck in July 2013, three years before the trial began. They claimed they stopped driving the vehicle because it was unsafe and they did not want to have to replace the tires.

Plaintiffs also contended that Toyota's refusal to repurchase the vehicle was a willful violation of the Song-Beverly Act, entitling them to a civil penalty (treble damages).

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Toyota denied that there were any defects with the vehicle causing abnormal/excessive tire wear. It claimed that plaintiffs failed to properly maintain their vehicle, including maintaining proper tire inflation pressures. Consequently, the tires on the subject vehicle experienced excessive edge wear.

Defendant further contended that the dealer's efforts to address plaintiffs' concerns were appropriate and that the vehicle was not the subject of an unreasonable number of repair opportunities to correct a defect. Defendant denied that it had willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act. Toyota argued that it had conducted a full and appropriate evaluation of plaintiffs' pre-lawsuit claim before denying it. Accordingly, it contended that a civil penalty was unwarranted.

After plaintiffs rested, defendant filed a motion for nonsuit, claiming plaintiffs had failed to file their complaint within the applicable statute of limitations.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiffs demanded a repurchase of vehicle, including restitution of $55,000, incidental damages of $1,921, attorney fees and a civil penalty. Defendant made a CCP 998 offer of $2,501.

Result

Nonsuit in favor of defendant. The court found that plaintiffs' causes of action against defendant accrued more than four years before the filing of the complaint, thereby rendering the lawsuit untimely. Accordingly, judgment was entered in favor of defendant.

Other Information

Toyota filed a cost bill in the amount of $14,337. FILING DATE: Sept. 16, 2013.

Length

eight days