Lorena Godinez v. BMW of North America, LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 23, 2023
• Docket: 2:17-cv-05072
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:17-cv-05072-FLA-RAO Document 255 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:2441

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LORENA GODINEZ, Case No. 2:17-cv-05072-FLA (RAOx) 12 Plaintiff, AMENDED JUDGMENT 13 v. 14 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, 15 et al., 16 Defendants. 17

18 19 This action came for trial on November 9, 2021 in Courtroom 6B of the United 20 States District Court for the Central District of California, the Honorable Fernando L. 21 Aenlle-Rocha, United States District Judge, presiding. Plaintiff Lorena Godinez 22 (“Plaintiff”) was represented at trial by Scot D. Wilson and Gregory Richard 23 Mohrman. Defendant BMW of North America, LLC (“Defendant” or “BMW) was 24 represented at trial by Daniel R. Villegas and Andrew K. Stefatos. 25 A jury of eight (8) persons was regularly empaneled and sworn. Witnesses 26 were sworn and testified. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the 27 jury was duly instructed by the court and the cause was submitted to the jury with 28 directions to return a verdict. The jury deliberated and thereafter returned to the court

1 Case 2:17-cv-05072-FLA-RAO Document 255 Filed 01/23/23 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:2442

1 its verdict, Dkts. 212, 213, unanimously finding the following: 2 1. Plaintiff Lorena Godinez bought a new 2010 BMW 328i SA distributed 3 by BMW of North America, LLC (the “Subject Vehicle”); 4 2. BMW of North America, LLC gave Plaintiff a written warranty; 5 3. The 2010 BMW 328i SA had defect(s) covered by the warranty that 6 substantially impaired the vehicle’s use, value, or safety to a reasonable 7 buyer in Plaintiff’s situation; 8 4. BMW of North America, LLC or its authorized repair facility failed to 9 repair the 2010 BMW 328i SA to match the written warranty after a 10 reasonable number of opportunities to do so; 11 5. BMW of North America, LLC failed to promptly replace or repurchase 12 the 2010 BMW 328i SA; 13 6. Regarding damages, the purchase price of the vehicle itself was $6,000, 14 incidental and consequential damages totaled $8,400, and the value of 15 use was $377.80, resulting in total actual damages of $14,022.20. 16 7. BMW of North America, LLC willfully failed to repurchase or replace 17 the new 2010 BMW 328i SA; and 18 8. A civil penalty in the amount of $28,044.40 was imposed. 19 On December 2, 2021, the court entered Judgment in Plaintiff’s favor in the 20 total amount of $42,066.60. Dkt. 219. 21 On December 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of 22 Law or, Alternatively, Amend the Judgment or for a New Partial Trial (“Motion”). 23 Dkt. 224. 24 On December 12, 2022, the court granted in part Plaintiff’s Motion and 25 CORRECTED the jury verdict as follows: 26  Paragraph 6(a), the purchase price of the Subject Vehicle was corrected 27 to: $45,563.00 28  Paragraph 6, Plaintiff’s value of use was corrected to: $2,868.95.

2 Case 2:17-cv-05072-FLA-RAO Document 255 Filed 01/23/23 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:2443

1  Paragraph 6, Plaintiff’s total damages were corrected to: $51,094.05. 2 Dkt. 249 at 2. The jury verdict was otherwise unchanged. Id. 3 In light of Plaintiff’s representation that she did not return the Subject Vehicle 4 to BMW, but instead sold it as a trade-in while purchasing another vehicle, the court 5 Ordered Plaintiff to file a declaration stating the amount of money or other value she 6 received in exchange for trading in the vehicle. Id. at 10. Plaintiff responded on 7 December 23, 2022, and presented evidence demonstrating she sold the Subject 8 Vehicle for $4,400.00.1 Dkt. 250-2. 9 / / / 10

11 1 Plaintiff contends the California Court of Appeal held in Figueroa v. FCA US 12 LLC, 84 Cal. App. 5th 708 (2022), that the Song-Beverly Act does not allow for offsets for trade-in credit, and requests this court hold likewise. Dkt. 250 at 3-13. In 13 Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC, 56 Cal. App. 5th 1052, 1077 (2020), a separate panel of 14 the California Court of Appeal held that the damages awarded by a jury in a Song- Beverly action must be reduced to reflect the value the plaintiff received for trading in 15 the vehicle at issue. This court agrees with Niedermeier, and finds Plaintiff’s damages 16 must be reduced by the trade-in value she received when she sold the Subject Vehicle. Figueroa, 84 Cal. App. 5th at 712, held that a jury award should not be reduced 17 to reflect the cash received by the buyer on the sale of the vehicle, because California 18 Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(B) requires the manufacturer to “make restitution in an amount equal to the actual price paid or payable by the buyer….” The Song-Beverly 19 Act, however, does not allow a buyer to retain a nonconforming vehicle after 20 obtaining restitution from the manufacturer. See Cal. Unif. Com. Code § 2702(2)(a) 21 (“After rejection any exercise of ownership by the buyer with respect to any commercial unit is wrongful as against the seller[.]”). The court, therefore, construes 22 Plaintiff’s conduct as acceptance of nonconforming goods as of the time she sold the 23 Subject Vehicle. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 1794(b)(2), “[w]here the buyer has accepted the goods, Sections 2714 and 2715 of the Commercial Code shall 24 apply….” California Uniform Commercial Code § 2714(2) states “[t]he measure of 25 damages for breach of warranty is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they 26 had been as warranted, unless special circumstances show proximate damages of a 27 different amount.” Accordingly, the court finds Plaintiff’s damages must be reduced by “the value of the goods accepted,” in the amount of $4,400. See Cal. Unif. Com. 28 Code § 2714(2).

3 Case 2:17-cv-05072-FLA-RAO Document 255 Filed 01/23/23 Page4of4 Page ID #:2444

l THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: 2 1. The Judgment is AMENDED, such that Plaintiff shall recover from 3 Defendant BMW of North America, LLC, the amounts of: 4 a. $45,563.00 for the purchase price of the vehicle and $8,400.00 in 5 incidental and consequential damages, minus $2,868.95 for the 6 mileage offset/use of the vehicle and $4,400.00 for the sale and trade- 7 in value she received, for a total of $46,694.05 in actual damages; and 8 b. $28,044.40 in civil penalties.” 9 2. The total Amended Judgment is $74,738.45, with interest thereon at the rate 10 of ten percent per annum from December 2, 2021, the date of entry of the 1] Judgment, until paid. 12 3. This court shall decide all issues involving attorney’s fees, costs, expenses, 13 and prejudgment interest by post-judgment motions and order that an 14 amended judgment be prepared for execution. 15 16 | Dated: January 23, 2023

18 FERNANDOL. AENLLE-ROCHA 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 a 97 | * Defendant’s request for the court to reduce the civil penalty is DENIED, as the jury awarded that amount of civil penalties before Plaintiff accepted or traded-in the 28 nonconforming vehicle.