Legal Opinion
Bardin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 23, 2006No. G034590PublishedCited by 128 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
FYBEL, J.
Introduction
The trial court sustained defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation’s (DCC) demurrer to plaintiffs’ second amended complaint which alleged violations of the unfair competition law (UCL) 1 and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), 2 and sought declaratory relief. The alleged statutory violations were based on DCC’s use of tubular steel in the exhaust manifolds of certain of its vehicles instead of more durable and more expensive cast iron. We affirm because plaintiffs failed to state a claim under any of those causes of action.
There are two lines of appellate opinions…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
- Seely v. White Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
- City of Cotati v. CashmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Zelig v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by128 opinions
- Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Gary Davis v. Hsbc Bank Nevada, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Lozano v. AT & T Wireless Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- Durell v. Sharp HealthcareCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
123 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.