Brownfield v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC

Good Law
584 F. App'x 874
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 1, 201412-56676California280 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Kyle Brownfield (Brownfield) appeals from the judgment entered' in favor of Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (Jaguar) following a jury trial of Brownfield’s case alleging that Jaguar violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, also known as California’s lemon law. See Cal. Civ.Code § 1790 et seq.

This case turned on whether Jaguar was given a reasonable number of opportunities to repair Brownfield’s vehicle. The parties submitted conflicting jury instructions to explain “reasonable opportunities” as used in the Act, and the district court modified the standard jury instruction (CACI 3202) to include the following, additional paragraph:

Brownfield takes issue with the use of the phrase “any particular problem” in the instruction. However, the instruction “fairly and adequately cover[ed] the issues presented, correctly state[d] the law, and [was] not ... misleading.” Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082 (9th Cir.2014) (en banc). As the case chiefly relied upon by Brownfield demonstrates, and as recognized by Brownfield during oral argument, California Song-Beverly cases use the terms “problem” and “defect” interchangeably. See, e.g., Robertson v. Fleetwood…

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.