The lessee of a limousine used for business purposes

Posted by Summer Payne on April 6th, 2021

Respondent, the lessee of a limousine used for business purposes, sued appellant automobile manufacturer under California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq. The Superior Court of Riverside County, California, entered judgment in favor of the lessee, and the manufacturer sought review.

The best business attorney manufacturer argued that the Song-Beverly Act had never applied to a vehicle used for business purposes if the business did not have any motor vehicles registered in California. The lessee conceded that no vehicles had ever been registered to it in California. The court held that, for the Song-Beverly Act to apply, the subject vehicle had to at least have been bought or leased in California. A vehicle was not within the scope of the Song-Beverly Act if it was used primarily for business purposes, it was not registered in California, and no other vehicles were registered to the plaintiff in California. Visit the best san diego labor law lawyers and discuss all labor law matters and issues.

Accordingly, the lessee could not recover on a Song-Beverly Act theory. Although the lessee contended that the manufacturer somehow waived or otherwise forfeited any claim that the Song-Beverly Act did not apply, the court found no such forfeiture. The lessee had the burden of pleading and proving that the Song-Beverly Act applied. Its complaint did so allege; however, the complaint was unverified. Accordingly, the manufacturer filed a general denial, which was sufficient to place the applicability of the Song-Beverly Act in issue under Code Civ. Proc., § 431.30, subd. (d).

The judgment was reversed. Petitioner licensee filed a petition for a writ of review, challenging an administrative decision by respondent California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to revoke his liquor license.

The licensee argued that the Department failed to establish proper screening procedures to ensure that its decision makers did not receive reports of a hearing from its prosecutors. The challenged practice implicated two related concerns: impermissible ex parte communication and illegal extra-record information. The court concluded that the Department failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that it employed an effective ethical wall, despite having had the opportunity to submit evidence on the point. The Department offered no evidence that it did not engage in the challenged practice, and the record before the court did not foreclose that possibility. A Department official's declaration contained only his second hand information and belief that no ex parte contact occurred. Because the Department failed to demonstrate that it employed an effective ethical wall, the court assumed that the Department's decision maker had access to the prosecutor's report of the hearing in this case. Based on the violation of statutory protections contained in the California Administrative Procedure Act, reversal of the Department's decision was required. A showing of prejudice was not required. The Department's decision to revoke the licensee's liquor license was reversed, and the Department's request for sanctions was denied.