Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 23STCV10739, Date: 2024-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23STCV10739, Date: 2024-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10739 Hearing Date: August 22, 2024 Dept: 34

Counsel for Defendant Vio’s Auto Sales (i.e., Auto Legal Group LLP) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon the filing of a proof of service showing service of the signed order via email upon the Client at the Client’s email address and via mail.

Background

Plaintiff Dakota R. Alvarez (“Plaintiff”) allege as follows:

Plaintiff was looking for a used vehicle to purchase. Plaintiff found the Vehicle online, so on April 29, 2022, she went to Vio’s Auto Sales, Inc. (“Dealer”) to look at the Vehicle. Plaintiff test drove the Vehicle and did not notice any issues. Dealer told Plaintiff the Vehicle had one prior owner. Dealer showed Plaintiff a vehicle history report which did not indicate any prior accidents or current issues with the Vehicle. Dealer told Plaintiff the Vehicle had not been involved in any accidents, had been properly inspected, and had no problems. Dealer’s website advertises that each vehicle undergoes a 34-point inspection by Dealer’s mechanic, gets a smog check, and a comes with a free AutoCheck report. The Vehicle came with a 30-day or 1,000-mile express warranty. Based on these representations, Plaintiff agreed to purchase the Vehicle from Dealer.

Plaintiff and Dealer signed the Contract, which included the following terms: 5.95% annual percentage rate, $21,999.00 cash price, $1,500.00 down payment, $24,745.51 amount financed, $4,744.97 finance charge, $29,490.48 total of payments, and 72 monthly payments of $409.59 starting on May 29, 2022.

As Plaintiff was leaving Dealer with the Vehicle, the check engine light (“CEL”) on the instrument panel came on. Plaintiff took the Vehicle back to Dealer three times for the CEL over a period of time. On the first repair attempt, Dealer replaced the gas cap. That did not fix the problem. On the second repair attempt, Dealer replaced the Vehicle’s O2 sensor. That also did not fix the problem. On the third repair attempt, Dealer replaced the ignition coil, which again, did not fix the problem. Dealer did not give Plaintiff repair orders for each service visit as required by law. Later, Plaintiff asked Dealer for the repair orders. Instead of providing repair orders for each service visit and repair, Dealer provided Plaintiff with one repair order for all three service visits on November 11, 2022. Because the CEL problem was still not fixed, on January 1, 2023, Plaintiff took the Vehicle to a Jeep Dealer in an attempt to resolve the CEL problem. The Jeep Dealer advised Plaintiff the cylinder head needed to be removed to attempt to diagnose the problem with the engine. Dealer gave an estimate of $1,800.00 to do this. The Jeep Dealer suspected the Vehicle’s cylinder head or cam shaft needed to be replaced. In addition, the Jeep Dealer diagnosed a coolant leak from the water pump and thermostat. Plaintiff declined these repairs. Plaintiff paid $380.00 for the inspection of the Vehicle.

Carfax shows the Vehicle was involved in two accidents, one on September 13, 2015, and another on December 26, 2017. The accident in 2017 caused damage to the right-front and right-rear of the Vehicle. According to the Contract, Dealer charged Plaintiff for an emission test and certificate. However, Dealer did not perform a smog test before selling the Vehicle to Plaintiff. On Line 2.A. of the Contract, Dealer charged Plaintiff $399.00 for Vehicle License Fees. The Vehicle License Fees are determined by multiplying 0.65% by the price of the Vehicle, which was $21,999.00. Based on this, the Vehicle License Fees should have been $143.00. Dealer was required to refund Plaintiff the access amount of Vehicle License Fees. Dealer did not provide a refund of these fees. The prior accident damage to the Vehicle, as well as the mechanical problems, would have and should have been discovered during Dealer’s 34-point inspection of the Vehicle prior to offering it for sale. Thus, Dealer knew of these problems when it sold the Vehicle to Plaintiff. Plaintiff would not have purchased the Vehicle if she had known Dealer had misrepresented the mechanical condition and the prior accidents to the Vehicle.

On May 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Dealer; Mechanics Bank and The Guarantee Company of North America USA (collectively “Defendants”) and Does 1-75 for:

1. Violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act;

2. Intentional Misrepresentation;

3. Concealment;

4. Negligent Misrepresentation;

5. Breach of Express Warranty;

6. Failure to Commence Repairs Within a Reasonable Time and to Complete Them Within 30 Days;

7. Failure to Promptly Repurchase Product;

8. Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability;

9. Violations of the Unfair Competition Law; and

10. Violation of the Vehicle Code section 11711.

A Final Status Conference is scheduled for November 5, 2024 and Trial is scheduled for November 18, 2024.

Discussion

Auto Legal Group LLP (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Vio’s Auto Sales (Dealer or “Client”).

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.)

California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1362 requires (1) a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)). The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.

Attorney Glen Olives (“Olives”) represents that (1) The principal and only shareholder of defendant Vio’s Auto Sales, Inc., Vio Bucur, is deceased; (2) The dealership is closed, the corporation has been dissolved, as confirmed by checking with the California Secretary of State; (3) The estate of the Vio Bucur, the individual owner of the corporation, has zero or negative assets and has no capital to cover any legal fees or expenses of defending the action; (4) Co-Defendant The Guarantee Company of North America, Inc., substituted in new counsel on February 29, 2024.

Olives states that he “confirmed by speaking with Vio Bucur's widow, Tanja Bucur, that his last known address was 28068 Santona Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (“Santona residence”), where Ms. Bucur still resides and the same address listed by the California Secretary of State for service of process for Vio[‘]s Auto Sales Inc.” The Proof of Service was mailed to the Santona residence.

The court determines that the requirements of Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 enumerated above have been sufficiently met.

Accordingly, the motion is granted, effective upon the filing of a proof of service showing service of the signed order via email upon the Client at the Client’s email address and via mail at the Santona residence.