Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

3 Citing cases

  1. Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz U.S., LLC

    9 Cal.5th 966 (Cal. 2020)   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Kirzhner, our Supreme Court held that costs that qualify as recoverable "incidental damages" must (1) be "incurred in the ‘inspection, receipt, transportation and care and custody' of [the] vehicle"; (2) "‘result[ ] from’ or [be] incurred ‘incident to’ a manufacturer’s breach of warranty or other violation of the Act"; and (3) be " ‘reasonably incurred.

    [Citation.] Registration fees for future years cannot be considered a ‘collateral charge’ because they are incurred and paid after the initial purchase or lease." ( Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 453, 458, 226 Cal.Rptr.3d 296 ( Kirzhner ).) The Court of Appeal further explained that incidental damages are limited to costs "incurred as a result of a vehicle being defective" and "[s]uch is not the case with vehicle registration renewal fees, which are more accurately characterized as a standard cost of owning any vehicle."

  2. O'Green v. KIA Motors Am., Inc.

    2d Civil No. B282366 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 21, 2018)

    Under the Song-Beverly Act, a defendant may make a section 998 offer to pay restitution "'in an amount equal to the actual price paid or payable by the Plaintiff, including any charges for transportation and manufacturer-installed options, but excluding non-manufacturer items installed by a dealer or the Plaintiff, and including any collateral charges . . . all to be determined by court motion if the parties cannot agree.'" (Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 453, 456, review granted Feb. 21, 2018, S246444.) Although Kirzhner is pending review before our Supreme Court, we cite it for its persuasive value.

  3. Ruiz v. BMW of N. Am., LLC

    Case No. 2:16-CV-01177-ODW-AGR (C.D. Cal. May. 7, 2018)   Cited 2 times

    See Silver Sage Partners, Ltd., 251 F.3d at 819 (citing U.S. v. 4.0 Acres of Land, 175 F.3d 1133, 1139 (9th Cir. 1999)) ("[A] district court may not grant a new trial simply because it would have arrived at a different verdict.") BMW cites Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 18 Cal. App. 5th 453, 458 (2017), for the proposition that, as a matter of law, consumers are not entitled to recover for items such as vehicle registration, gas, oil changes, etc., "which are more accurately characterized as a standard cost of owning any vehicle." On February 21, 2018, the California Supreme Court granted review of Kirzhner, but denied requests for depublication of the opinion pending the Supreme Court's review.