Victorino

Victorino v. FCA US LLC

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMay 5, 20233:16-cv-01617California9,881 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

Background 25 Plaintiff Carlos Victorino (“Plaintiff”) brought a class action against Defendant 26 FCA US LLC (“Defendant” or “FCA”), the designer, manufacturer and distributor of the 27 2013-2015 Dodge Dart vehicles equipped with a Fiat C635 manual transmission built on or before November 12, 2014, (“Class Vehicles”), alleging they have a defective clutch system that can cause the clutch to fail and stick to the floor, preventing drivers from shifting gears and controlling the vehicle’s speed. Plaintiff filed the operative FAC on June 19, 20171 alleging five causes of action against Defendant for violating California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), violating California’s unfair competition law (“UCL”), breaching California’s implied warranty law under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song Beverly Act”), breaching federal implied warranty law under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”), and unjust enrichment. (Dkt. No. 104, FAC; Dkt. No. 431-2, Zohdy Decl. ¶ 3.) After the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and motion for reconsideration, the remaining causes of action are the breach of implied…

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.