Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Paduano v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 12, 2009No. D050112Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

O’ROURKE, J., Concurring and Dissenting

I agree with my colleagues’ conclusions that Paduano’s causes of action for breach of warranty under state and federal law are preempted by federal law. However, for the reasons set forth below I would affirm the order granting summary judgment. In my view, Paduano’s false advertising claims under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA; Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) and unfair competition law (UCL; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200) are also preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), title 49 United States Code sections 32901 et seq.…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd.Illinois Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
  5. American Airlines, Inc. v. WolensSupreme Court of the United States · 1995

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API