San Diego Superior Court Grants Summary Judgment in Lemon Law Case
November 29, 2012
The San Diego Superior Court granted summary judgment in a lemon law case handled by Robert M. Scherk and Scott J. Loeding. The case involved an Arctic Cat all-terrain vehicle sold by Sette Sports Center, Inc. Mr. Scherk and Mr. Loeding represented both Arctic Cat, Inc. and Sette.
Plaintiff Kevin Schaefer filed suit in San Diego Superior Court for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, which provides that when a manufacturer cannot repair consumer goods after a reasonable number of attempts, it must either replace the defective product or refund the consumer's money. He named as defendants Arctic Cat, Inc., the manufacturer of the ATV; Sette Sports Center, Inc., the retail seller of the ATV, and Cornerstone United, Inc., a company that issued an extended service contract to the original buyer.
In June of 2009, Sette listed the slightly used 2009 Arctic Cat ATV on E-Bay Motors which Sette had taken in trade from the original owner. The E-Bay listing stated “Buyer responsible for vehicle pick-up or shipping” and that the Arctic Cat ATV was located in Owatonna, Minnesota. Mr. Schaefer submitted the winning bid on or about June 11, 2009, and a Bill of Sale was prepared by Sette to reflect the sale of the Arctic Cat ATV to the plaintiff. The Bill of Sale did not contain any provision requiring Sette to deliver the ATV to the plaintiff in California. Nor did the Bill of Sale contain any freight or shipping charge by Sette. Sette did not pay any shipping charges for the ATV; those charges were paid by Mr. Schaefer. He arranged for a trucking company to pick up the ATV from Sette in Minnesota and transport it to San Diego County.
Mr. Schaefer claimed that after several months of use of the ATV, he had problems with it and brought it to an Arctic Cat authorized repair facility in San Diego County, but that the ATV could not be and was not properly repaired.
After significant written discovery and a number of depositions, Arctic Cat and Sette filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that, despite Mr. Schaefer taking possession of the ATV in San Diego County, the Bill of Sale and the fact that the plaintiff had the ATV picked up in Minnesota, established that he had actually purchased the ATV in Minnesota, and because the Song-Beverly Act applies only to vehicles purchased in California, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment.
The plaintiff opposed the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that there were questions of fact as to whether the ATV was sold or purchased in California. He also argued that as an active member of the U.S. Navy, he was entitled to the benefit of a statute amending the Song-Beverly Act to provide additional protections to military personnel stationed in California at the time of purchase of the vehicle in question. The court granted the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, agreeing with their arguments that to determine whether the ATV was sold in Minnesota or California for purposes of the Song-Beverly Consumer Act, the court must follow the Uniform Commercial Code, which governs when and where the title passes between a seller and buyer.
The court also agreed that the contract between the plaintiff and the retailer, Sette Sports Center, did not require Sette to deliver the ATV to a destination in California, and that because the plaintiff was responsible for shipping, pursuant to the UCC and applicable case law, the ATV was, as a matter of law, sold in Minnesota and not California, making the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act inapplicable, and the defendants thereby entitled to summary judgment.
