Gal v. Panto USA CA4/1

Filed 5/15/13 Gal v. Panto USA CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

LASZLO GAL et al., D059582

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2008-00092714- CU-BC-CTL) PANTO USA, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Steven R.

Denton, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Law Offices of Sean D. Schwerdtfeger, Sean D. Schwerdtfeger and Justin J.

Wieland for Defendant and Appellant.

Navigato & Battin, Michael W. Battin and Stephanie S. Sciarani for Plaintiffs and

Respondents.

A jury found in favor of plaintiffs Laszlo Gal and Agnes Christina Gal (together

the Gals) on their claim for breach of implied warranty against Panto USA, Inc. (Panto).

Panto appeals, claiming the trial court erred in precluding all evidence regarding a

warranty disclaimer in the contract on the ground the disclaimer was not conspicuous.

(Cal. U. Com. Code, § 2316.) It also asserts that some of the damages awarded must be

stricken.

At oral argument on this appeal, counsel for Panto informed the court that the

corporate status of his client had been changed to forfeited by the California Secretary of