Csiza

Csiza v. CarMax Auto Super Stores CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 21, 2015D065916California8,205 words

Opinion

Opinion

Irion, J.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

" 'Because this case comes before us after the trial court granted a motion for

summary judgment, we take the facts from the record that was before the trial court when

it ruled on that motion.' " (Wilson v. 21 Century Ins. Co. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 713, 716-717-

718.) We consider all the evidence in the moving and opposing papers, except that to

which objections were made and sustained, liberally construing Csiza's evidence and

resolving any doubts in the evidence in her favor. (Id. at p. 717; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,

subd. (c).)

A. Csiza Buys a Certified Used Car from CarMax

CarMax is a national retailer of used cars. In early June 2012, Csiza purchased a

used 2008 Subaru Outback (the Subaru) from CarMax at its San Diego store. CarMax

provided an express limited 30-day warranty, and Csiza purchased an extended warranty.

" ' "Judicial notice is the recognition and acceptance by the court, for use by the trier of fact or by the court, of the existence of a matter of law or fact that is relevant to an issue in the action without requiring formal proof of the matter." ' " (Unruh-Haxton v. Regents 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.