Procedural Posture

In a class action, plaintiff consumers alleged that certain of defendant car manufacturer's odometers over registered mileage by approximately two percent and that the alleged miscalibration violated consumer protection law, even though the odometers were within the recommended four percent tolerance. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, granted summary judgment for the manufacturer, and the consumers appealed.

Overview

The court of appeal held that vehicle odometers were "correct" under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 12500, subd. (c), if they registered actual mileage within the four percent tolerance recommended by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Wage Theft law California the designer or manufacturer did not deliberately miscalibrate them to under register or over register mileage. Section 12500, subd. (c), was a safe harbor provision under which odometers were, as a matter of law, correct if they met the relevant tolerance standard and were not deliberately miscalibrated. Such deliberate miscalibration was not shown in the current case. Therefore, § 12500, subd. (c), barred claims under consumer protection statutes (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200, 17500; Civ. Code, § 1750, et seq.) based on the alleged inaccuracy or based on a failure to disclose. The manufacturer did not breach any contractual obligations to the consumers. As to claims for negligent or intentional misrepresentation, the consumers provided no evidence of any affirmative misrepresentation and the manufacturer had no duty to disclose that its odometers might be slightly miscalibrated.

Outcome

The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment.


Procedural Posture

The state sought review of an order from the Municipal Court of the City of San Diego (California) granting defendant's motion to dismiss the charges against him for want of a speedy trial.

Overview

Defendant entered a not guilty plea to charges of violating Cal. Health & Safety Code § 29020, made a jury demand, and a trial date was set. At the time of trial defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him for want of a speedy trial. The motion was granted, and the state appealed the order. The court noted that the question raised by this appeal was whether in passing upon a motion to dismiss for want of a speedy trial, was the trier of fact bound by the rule on appeal that in the absence of objection at the setting the defendant was deemed to have waived his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The court noted that on appeal all intendments were in favor of the regularity of the action of the trial court, and that error would never have been presumed, but must have affirmatively appeared. Therefore, there must have been an affirmative showing of error to overcome the presumption to the contrary. Finding no affirmative showing of error, the court concluded that the order of the trial court was proper.

Outcome

The order of the trial court dismissing the charges against defendant was affirmed.