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
Consumer Protection
Lemon Law

Rand MacQuiddy v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC and Does 1-10

Published: Jul. 6, 2013 | Result Date: May 21, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC488675 Verdict –  Defense

Court

L.A. Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Mark P. Romano


Defendant

Peter M. Hart
(Law Office of Peter M. Hart)


Facts

In February 2010, Rand MacQuiddy purchased a new car with a standard manufacturer's warranty. Between 2011 and 2012, he claimed that there were four instances where his vehicle would not start in the morning. He brought the vehicle to the dealership for repairs, but the cause of the dead battery was never identified. He returned the car to the dealership in May 2012, but did not pick it up again until June.

MacQuiddy sued Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, alleging that the vehicle's poor condition constituted a violation of federal and California "lemon law."

Mercedes admitted liability, and made an offer to repurchase the vehicle and compensate MacQuiddy. MacQuiddy rejected the offer, and the trial continued on the question of whether Mecedes willfully failed to repurchase the vehicle and whether MacQuiddy was owed civil penalties.

Result

The jury found that Mercedes was not liable for civil penalties.


#91574

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

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