Carmax Auto Superstores v. Superior Court CA4/2

FACTS

In May 2011, Losorelli and his then fiancé, Paredes, purchased a 2007 Chevrolet

Tahoe from CarMax in Riverside. They financed the purchase through their credit union.

In June 2011, the California Highway Patrol impounded the vehicle because its

vehicle identification number (VIN) was false. Losorelli and Paredes complained to

CarMax, but allege they met resistance to their demands for reimbursement and damages,

including payment for a rental car. CarMax did make an offer for reimbursement of the

purchase price, as well as additional costs, and on July 21, 2011, CarMax’s legal

department sent Losorelli and Paredes a letter asking them to sign a confidential

settlement agreement.

Statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise indicated.

2 We deny Losorelli’s motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds of untimeliness. (Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51, 64.)

2 Losorelli apparently balked at signing this agreement and retained an attorney.

The attorney, claiming only to represent Losorelli, sent CarMax two letters on July 27,

2011, asserting that it was in violation of the…