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
Unfair Business Practices
Breach of California Secret Warranty Law

Christina Paschal, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Mazda Motor of America Inc.

Published: Aug. 23, 2014 | Result Date: Aug. 4, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 8:14-cv-00594-AG-RNB Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Robert L. Starr
(Law Office of Robert L. Starr)

Stephen M. Harris
(Law Offices of Stephen M. Harris PC)


Defendant

John M. Thomas
(Dykema Gossett PLLC)


Facts

Christina Paschal filed a class action breach of warranty lawsuit against Mazda Motor of America Inc.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Paschal bought a used 2004 Mazda RX8 vehicle that originally came with a four-year/50,000 mile warranty. Paschal alleged that because 2004-2008 Mazda RX8 vehicles are susceptible to engine flooding, Mazda extended the warranty on the rotary engine core to 8 years and 100,000 miles. Paschal alleged that she experienced difficulty starting her vehicle on two occasions. Paschal further alleged that the second time she had trouble starting her vehicle that the Mazda dealership did not replace the spark plugs, but that they were obligated to do so under the extended warranty.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Mazda argued that under the extended warranty it was only required to replace spark plugs when doing so is necessary to correct problems caused by fuel flooding.

Result

The court granted Mazda's motion for summary judgment. In it's ruling, the court rejected Paschal's argument that the extended warranty always requires replacement of spark plugs if the vehicle will not restart. The court found instead that the warranty did not require any repair that was not necessary in a particular case. The court held, therefore, that there was no evidence to show that Mazda breached its obligation to perform necessary repairs.

Other Information

FILING DATE: April 16, 2014.


#99572

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

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