Clemens

Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

Good Law
534 F.3d 1017·2008 WL 2840662·66 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 688·2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 15949
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 24, 200806-56410California3,433 words

Opinion

Opinion

Canby, J.

ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND AMENDED OPINION

ORDER

This court’s mandate of July 13, 2008, 530 F.3d 852 (9th Cir.2008), is RECALLED.

The opinion of this court filed on June 19, 2008, slip op. at 7095, 530 F.3d 852 , is amended as follows:

1. At slip op. at 7103, 530 F.3d. at 858 , amend the second sentence of the first paragraph of Subsection B (beginning “In California, a plaintiff ... ”), so that it states:

2. At slip op. at 7104, 530 F.3d at 859 , amend the second-to-last textual sentence of Subsection B so that it states:

The amended opinion, incorporating these changes, follows.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

OPINION

Keith Clemens brought this class action against DaimlerChrysler Corporation alleging that DaimlerChrysler breached express and implied warranties and committed fraud in the sale of Dodge Neon cars containing defective head gaskets from 1995 to 1998. The district court granted DaimlerChrysler’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the warranty claims. It also granted DaimlerChrysler’s motion for summary judgment on the fraud claims, holding that one claim was barred by the statute of limitations and the other failed on the merits. Clemens appealed all of…

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.