Kalta v. Fleets 101

Filed 10/29/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

MIKE KALTA et al., B292185

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC640449) v.

FLEETS 101, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elizabeth A. White, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Office of Steven A. Simons and Steven A. Simons for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Gross Law Firm and Jared Gross for Defendant and Appellant.

**********

This is an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff Mike Kalta on his claim against defendant for violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA; Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) Defendant contends the judgment must be reversed because Mr. Kalta is not a consumer with standing to sue under the CLRA. We affirm. FACTS We glean the following facts from the rather limited record on appeal, which did not include the pleadings, a transcript of the hearing on the motions in limine, the trial exhibits, or jury instructions. It appears plaintiffs Mike Kalta and his business, Greenfield Landscaping, Inc., sued defendant Fleets 101, Inc. for violation of the CLRA based on misrepresentations made during the sale of a used truck to plaintiffs. Defendant admitted in response to plaintiffs’ request for admissions that the vehicle was purchased for Mr. Kalta’s personal use. Before trial, defendant moved in limine to preclude plaintiffs from introducing this admission at trial, and to preclude any reference at trial to plaintiffs as “consumers” under the CLRA. These motions were denied. Defendant makes no claim of error in the court’s ruling denying these motions in limine. The evidence at trial was that Mr. Kalta purchased the vehicle through his company, Greenfield Landscaping, Inc., due to his poor credit. Title was taken in the business’s name. However, Mr. Kalta testified the vehicle was for his personal use, and the Retail Installment Sale Contract states the truck was purchased for personal and not commercial purposes. The trial court instructed the jury it had been “conclusively established”