Justia California Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A group of homeowners, all over the age of 65, entered into contracts for energy efficiency improvements to their homes under California's Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. This program allows local governments to offer financing for such improvements, with repayment made through voluntary special assessments added to the homeowners’ property tax bills. Most local governments contracted private companies to administer these PACE loans. The homeowners alleged that these private administrators failed to comply with consumer protection and lending laws applicable to consumer lenders, such as providing required warnings and avoiding prohibited security interests. They filed suit under the Unfair Competition Law, seeking injunctive relief and restitution, including the return of assessment monies paid and prohibitions on future collection of delinquent assessments unless the assessments were removed from their properties.The San Diego County Superior Court sustained the defendants’ demurrers, concluding that the plaintiffs were required to exhaust administrative tax remedies before pursuing their claims in court. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning that because PACE assessments are collected as part of property taxes and the relief sought would invalidate those assessments, plaintiffs first needed to pay the assessments and seek administrative relief through the established tax refund procedures.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to determine whether plaintiffs were required to follow statutory procedures for challenging taxes. The court held that when plaintiffs’ claims effectively seek to invalidate PACE assessments or prevent their future collection, they must first pay the assessments and pursue administrative tax remedies. However, the court also held that plaintiffs are not required to use tax challenge procedures for claims that do not directly or indirectly challenge a tax, such as those solely addressing the administration of the PACE program. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case remanded to consider whether plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaints to state only non-tax-related claims. View "Morgan v. Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc." on Justia Law

Oscar and Audrey Madrigal purchased a car from Hyundai Motor America in 2011 for $24,172.73. The car allegedly did not function as warranted, and repeated repair attempts failed. The Madrigals requested Hyundai to repurchase the car under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, but Hyundai refused, leading the Madrigals to sue for violations of the Act. Hyundai made two settlement offers under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, which the Madrigals did not accept. On the first day of trial, after the court tentatively ruled against the Madrigals on pretrial motions, the parties settled for $39,000, with the Madrigals retaining the right to seek costs and attorney fees by motion.The Placer County Superior Court ruled that section 998 did not apply because the case settled before trial, and awarded the Madrigals $84,742.50 in attorney fees and $17,681.05 in other costs. Hyundai appealed, arguing that the Madrigals should not recover any postoffer costs because they settled for less than the second 998 offer. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that section 998’s cost-shifting provisions applied and remanded for further proceedings.The Supreme Court of California affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Court held that section 998’s cost-shifting provisions apply even when a case settles before trial but after a section 998 offer is rejected or deemed withdrawn. The Court reasoned that the statute’s language and purpose—to encourage the settlement of lawsuits before trial—support this interpretation. The Court clarified that parties are free to agree on their own allocation of costs and fees as part of a settlement agreement, but absent such an agreement, section 998’s default cost-shifting rules apply. View "Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Everardo Rodriguez and Judith Arellano purchased a two-year-old car with over 55,000 miles on it, which still had an unexpired manufacturer’s new car warranty. Despite numerous repair attempts by the defendant, FCA US, LLC (FCA), the car continued to experience engine problems. Plaintiffs sued FCA under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, seeking to enforce the refund-or-replace provision, claiming their car was a “new motor vehicle” because it was sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty.The Riverside County Superior Court granted FCA’s motion for summary judgment, agreeing with FCA that the refund-or-replace remedy did not apply because the plaintiffs’ car was not a “new motor vehicle” under the Act. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, holding that the phrase “other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty” did not cover previously owned vehicles with some balance remaining on the manufacturer’s express warranty.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The court held that a motor vehicle purchased with an unexpired manufacturer’s new car warranty does not qualify as a “motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty” under section 1793.22, subdivision (e)(2) of the Song-Beverly Act unless the new car warranty was issued with the sale. The court concluded that the statutory language, context, and legislative history supported this interpretation, distinguishing between new and used vehicles and their respective warranty protections under the Act. View "Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves Taylor Capito, who filed a class action lawsuit against San Jose Healthcare System, LP, also known as Regional Medical Center San Jose, challenging the assessment of Evaluation and Management Services (EMS) fees for two emergency room visits. Capito argued that Regional had a duty to notify emergency room patients about EMS fees beyond listing them in the chargemaster, such as through posted signage or during the patient registration process. She claimed that Regional's failure to do so constituted an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and violated the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).The trial court sustained Regional's demurrer without leave to amend, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The appellate court reasoned that hospitals do not have a duty to disclose EMS fees beyond what is required by the relevant statutory and regulatory framework, following the reasoning in similar cases like Gray v. Dignity Health and Saini v. Sutter Health. The Court of Appeal also affirmed the trial court's order striking the class allegations in Capito's first amended complaint.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeal's judgment. The court held that hospitals do not have a duty under the UCL or CLRA, beyond their obligations under the relevant statutory and regulatory scheme, to disclose EMS fees prior to treating emergency room patients. The court emphasized that requiring such disclosure would alter the balance of competing interests, including price transparency and the provision of emergency care without regard to cost, as reflected in the multifaceted scheme developed by state and federal authorities. The court also dismissed Capito's appeal from the trial court's order striking her class allegations as moot. View "Capito v. San Jose Healthcare System, LP" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Everardo Rodriguez and Judith Arellano purchased a two-year-old car with over 55,000 miles on it, which still had an unexpired manufacturer’s powertrain warranty. Despite numerous repair attempts by the defendant, FCA US, LLC (FCA), the car continued to experience engine problems. Plaintiffs sued FCA under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, seeking to enforce the refund-or-replace provision, arguing that their car qualified as a “new motor vehicle” because it was sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty.The Riverside County Superior Court granted FCA’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiffs’ car did not qualify as a “new motor vehicle” under the Act. The Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the phrase “other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty” does not include previously owned vehicles with some balance remaining on the manufacturer’s express warranty.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court held that a motor vehicle purchased with an unexpired manufacturer’s new car warranty does not qualify as a “motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty” under section 1793.22, subdivision (e)(2) of the Song-Beverly Act unless the new car warranty was issued with the sale. The Court emphasized that the statutory language and the broader context of the Song-Beverly Act support this interpretation, maintaining the distinction between new and used vehicles and their respective warranty protections. View "Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Katherine Rosenberg-Wohl procured a homeowners insurance policy from State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, which covered various risks including fire. After her neighbor fell on her staircase, she discovered the stairs needed replacement and filed a claim with State Farm. The insurer denied her claim, citing policy exclusions. Rosenberg-Wohl then filed two lawsuits: one for breach of contract and another under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding State Farm’s general claims-handling practices.The San Francisco City and County Superior Court sustained State Farm’s demurrer, concluding that the one-year limitations period in the insurance policy applied to all of Rosenberg-Wohl’s claims, including her UCL claim. The court reasoned that her claims were essentially “on the policy” because they were grounded in the denial of her insurance claim. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, with a majority agreeing that the one-year limitations period applied, while a dissenting justice argued that the UCL’s four-year limitations period should govern.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and concluded that the one-year limitations period in section 2071 of the Insurance Code and the insurance policy did not apply to Rosenberg-Wohl’s UCL cause of action. The court determined that her lawsuit was not a “suit or action on [the] policy for the recovery of any claim” because she sought only declaratory and injunctive relief, not a financial recovery under the policy. The court emphasized that the UCL’s four-year statute of limitations governed her claim. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Rosenberg-Wohl v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of California, in a case involving a dispute over California's lemon law, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Lisa Niedermeier. Niedermeier had purchased a new Jeep Wrangler from FCA US LLC, which was defective. Despite numerous attempts to repair the vehicle, the issues persisted. Niedermeier requested FCA buy back the vehicle, but FCA declined. Eventually, she traded in the defective vehicle for a new one, receiving a trade-in credit.Niedermeier later sued FCA for breach of warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. A jury found in her favor and awarded her a significant sum. FCA appealed, arguing the award should be reduced by the trade-in amount. The Court of Appeal agreed with FCA, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision.The Supreme Court held that in an action under the Song-Beverly Act, neither a trade-in credit nor sale proceeds reduce the statutory restitution remedy. The court reasoned that the Act's plain language does not permit such a reduction. Additionally, the court found that this interpretation is supported by the legislative history and consumer-protective purpose of the Act. The court further noted that allowing such a reduction would incentivize manufacturers to delay compliance with the Act.The court concluded that the statutory restitution remedy should not be reduced by a trade-in credit or sale proceeds, at least in cases where a consumer is forced to trade in or sell a defective vehicle due to the manufacturer's failure to comply with the Act. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. View "Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC" on Justia Law

In this dispute over whether Plaintiff's claims premised on the packaging and video of Michael, an album of music billed as Michael Jackson's first posthumous release, were subject to the album marketers' motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute the Supreme Court held that Plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated that some of her claims had sufficient merit.In her complaint against Sony Music Entertainment, Plaintiff asserted that Michael's marketers misled her and violated two California consumer protection laws, the unfair competition law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, by misrepresenting a vocalist on certain tracks through the album's packaging and in a promotional video. The court of appeal granted Defendants' motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, concluding that the First Amendment required classifying the disputed statements as noncommercial speech. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff's claims related to Michael's packaging and promotional video had sufficient merit. View "Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeal affirming the judgment of the trial court granting Plaintiff's postural motion seeking attorney's fees in the amount of $169,602 under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code 1795, subd. (d), after awarding her $21,957.25 in damages on her claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff purchased a used vehicle from a dealership pursuant to an installment sales contract that was later assigned to TD Auto Finance (TDAF). Plaintiff filed suit against the dealership and TDAF, alleging misconduct in the sale of the car. A jury found that Defendants breached the implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Act and awarded damages and attorney's fees under the Song-Beverly Act. The court of appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that recovery under the Federal Trade Commission's Holder Rule does not limit the award of attorney's fees where, as a here, a buyer seeks fees from a holder under a state prevailing party statute. View "Pulliam v. HNL Automotive, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case where Plaintiff selected the remedy of restitution under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code 1790 et seq. after Mercedes-Benz USA LLC (Mercedes) was unable to repair defects in the vehicle Plaintiff leased from Mercedes the Supreme Court held that Mercedes was required to reimburse vehicle registration renewal and nonoperation fees Plaintiff paid if the fees were incurred as a result of Mercedes' breach of its duty to promptly provide a replacement vehicle or restitution.At issue was whether the Act required Mercedes to reimburse the vehicle registration renewal and nonoperation fees Plaintiff paid after the initial lease of his vehicle either as collateral charges or as incidental damages. The trial court excluded the vehicle registration renewal fees and the nonoperation fee from the restitution award. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding (1) the fees at issue were not recoverable as collateral charges because they were not auxiliary to and did not supplement the price paid for the vehicle; but (2) the fees were recoverable as incidental damages if they were incurred as a result of the manufacturer's breach of its duty to promptly provide a replacement vehicle or restitution under the Act. View "Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC" on Justia Law