Sanders v. Ford Motor Co. CA2/1

Filed 10/26/15 Sanders v. Ford Motor Co. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

HERBERT SANDERS et al., B257790

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC484666) v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from postjudgment orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Terry A. Green, Judge. Affirmed. Gates, O’Doherty, Gonter & Guy, Matthew M. Proudfoot; Dykema Gossett, John M. Thomas and Tamara A. Bush for Defendant and Appellant. Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, Hallen D. Rosner; Law Office of Michael H. Rosenstein, Michael H. Rosenstein; O’Connor & Mikhov and Steve Borislav Mikhov for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

____________________________________________

Appellant Ford Motor Company (Ford) contends the trial court erred in refusing to issue a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or to order a new trial after entering a jury verdict. The jury found Ford breached its warranty under a lemon law to respondents Herbert Sanders and Christine Sanders (Mrs. Sanders) (collectively the Sanderses). Ford argues there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict and the Sanderses’ expert’s testimony should have been excluded. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND The Sanderses purchased their Ford Fusion in 2011. Less than a month after their purchase, Mrs. Sanders brought the Fusion to a Ford dealer for repairs. She complained the car was harshly shifting and “jerking” into gear when she accelerated from a stop, causing her to be pushed back into her seat. She also complained the car made a whistling or buzzing noise. The dealer replaced the sticking valve body in the transmission to fix the shifting issue and the fuel pump to fix the noise issue. The dealer noted on the service record the noise issue was fixed, but did not record whether the shifting issue was fixed. Mrs. Sanders did not pay for the repairs because her car was still under warranty. The dealer provided her with a complimentary car to drive while hers was being fixed. A little more than a month later, Mrs. Sanders returned to the dealer and complained of the same issues. The dealer again replaced the fuel pump to fix the noise issue. The dealer reprogrammed the power train control module to fix the shifting issue based on a “technical service bulletin” (TSB), which is guidance issued by Ford to address specific mechanical problems. The reprogramming did not solve the shifting issue. At the advice of a Ford hotline operator, the dealer made further repairs, which included another reprogramming, under a different TSB. The dealer recorded the repairs were successful. Again, the dealer did not charge Mrs. Sanders for the under-warranty repairs and provided her with a complimentary rental car. A little more than a month later, Mrs. Sanders brought the Fusion to another Ford dealer and complained of the same shifting issues. She did not complain of the noise