HOLDINGS: -An alleged industry custom here whereby car manufacturers voluntarily extended durational warranties in light of a safety defect was not legally sufficient for car buyers to state a claim that a 48-month/50,000-mile durational warranty was substantively unconscionable; -The California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) did not permit the buyers to put the manufacturer on notice of defects in an engine when neither had acquired a vehicle containing that engine; -Issues related to purported defects in the buyers’ CLRA notice letter did not preclude their otherwise legally cognizable CLRA money damages claim. An EEOC attorney represented respondent.
Manufacturer’s motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part; manufacturer’s motion to strike denied.
Appellant customer sought review of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) judgment which sustained respondent corporation’s demurrer to appellant’s sixth amended complaint without leave to amend and dismissed appellant’s action that alleged “statutory unfair competition,” conversion, and fraud against respondent.
Appellant customer refused to pay respondent corporation’s additional $ 1 service charge imposed because appellant’s film was found at respondent’s unclaimed processing office. Respondent waived the charge and appellant received his pictures for the original price. Nevertheless, appellant filed a complaint that alleged “statutory unfair competition,” conversion, and fraud against respondent. The trial court sustained respondent’s demurrer to appellant’s sixth amended complaint without leave to amend and dismissed the action. The court affirmed. The court found that respondent intended to provide the service of storage and handling of unclaimed work for which they were entitled to remuneration. The court held that appellant’s claims of conversion failed because his complaint contained the defense that processing arrived at the unclaimed department because customers failed to claim their pictures. The court found no fraud in respondent’s actions or advertising. The court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the action because appellant already amended his complaint six times.
The court affirmed the judgment that dismissed appellant customer’s action of “statutory unfair competition,” conversion and fraud against respondent corporation because court found respondent intended to charge for a service and found no evidence of fraud. The court held that appellant’s conversion claim failed because it contained the defense to the claim.