Tovas

Tovas v. American Honda Motor Co.

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 695·57 Cal. App. 4th 506·67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 145·97 Daily Journal DAR 11389·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7077
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 29, 1997B099982California5,285 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kitching, J.

Introduction

In this case we are asked to decide whether the New Motor Vehicle Board (Board) has jurisdiction under Vehicle Code section 3050, subdivision (c), to consider allegations of serious financial misconduct asserted by plaintiffs against American Honda Motor Company, Inc. We find that section 3050, subdivision (c) does not provide the Board with jurisdiction. A cause of action for contractual interference based on tortious business practices independent of any franchise agreement, brought by a nonsignatory to a franchise agreement with Honda, is not the type of claim over which section 3050 gives the Board jurisdiction.

The heirs and ex-wife of decedent Robert L. Hix (collectively referred to as the Hix heirs) brought an action against American Honda Motor Company, Inc. and Honda North American, Inc. (collectively referred to as Honda) alleging that Honda’s misconduct, stemming from an alleged commercial bribery scheme, constituted intentional interference with the purchase agreements between Robert Hix (Hix) and a Honda dealership. Hix had no contractual arrangement with Honda. The trial court ruled that under the “Yamaha” line of cases, the Board had…

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.