Pelascini

Pelascini v. Airstream CA1/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 30, 2025A169686California2,848 words

Opinion

Opinion

Guez, J.

BACKGROUND

The Pelascinis purchased a new Airstream motor home in May 2022 from AANW. They signed a document titled “2022 Interstate Limited Warranty” (limited warranty) containing a “Legal Remedies” provision. (Some capitalization omitted.) In it was a forum selection clause requiring that “disputes relating to alleged breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranties” be litigated in Ohio. (Capitalization omitted.) Additionally, the clause provided Ohio law governs “all claims, controversies, and causes of action arising out of or relating to this limited warranty,” “without giving effect to any conflict of law rule that would result” in applying the laws of a different jurisdiction. (Capitalization omitted.) The Pelascinis later identified defects with the motor home that Airstream repair facilities failed to address. They requested Airstream either replace the motor home or provide them with a refund. Airstream did not respond. Months later, it rejected the demand to repurchase the motor home. The Pelascinis sued, alleging violations of the CLRA and Song-Beverly Act. Airstream moved to stay the action on inconvenient forum grounds, arguing the limited warranty…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.