Medrazo

Medrazo v. Honda of North Hollywood

Caution
140 Cal. Rptr. 3d 20·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 435·205 Cal. App. 4th 1·2012 WL 1021692
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 27, 2012No. B230410California5,604 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Willhite, J.

*4 Opinion

Plaintiff Audrey Medrazo, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against defendant Honda of North Hollywood 1 (HNH) asserting claims under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) (UCL) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) (CLRA), based upon HNH’s alleged violations of Vehicle Code sections 11712.5 and 24014 (hereafter section 11712.5 and section 24014). This is the second appeal in this case. In the first appeal, we reversed the trial court’s denial of class certification and directed that the class be certified. (Medrazo v. Honda of North Hollywood (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 89 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ] (Medrazo /).) In this appeal, Medrazo challenges the trial court’s granting of HNH’s motion for judgment, which was filed after Medrazo completed her presentation of evidence at trial. The trial court found that Medrazo failed to establish that she, or any other class member, was injured by HNH’s conduct, and therefore HNH was entitled to judgment on the UCL and CLRA claims. We reverse the judgment as to the UCL claim, but we affirm the judgment as to the CLRA claim on the ground that…

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.