Bernstein v. BMW of North America, LLC
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:18-cv-01801
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 13
In Bernstein v. BMW of North America, LLC, Judge Corley issued proposed Song-Beverly jury instructions and asked both sides to answer questions before trial.
Karen Bernstein and BMW of North America, LLC; the order also directed both parties to respond to the court’s questions and proposed jury instructions.
What happened
In Bernstein v. BMW of North America, LLC, Karen Bernstein claimed that BMW breached express and implied warranties for her 2013 BMW 328i. BMW denied the claims and argued that the lawsuit was filed too late.
The court prepared proposed jury instructions explaining Bernstein’s claims, BMW’s time-limit defense, possible damages, restitution, incidental expenses, and a possible civil penalty for a willful violation. The instructions also addressed how repair opportunities and continued vehicle use should be considered.
The court ordered both sides to respond to the proposed instructions and several questions by noon on September 13, 2019, including questions about damages, the time-limit defense, and when Bernstein discovered or first presented the defect for repair. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley issued the order.
The detailed version
- Bernstein v. BMW of North America, LLC · No. 3:18-cv-01801
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Sept. 11, 2019
Background
The court reviewed the parties’ proposed final jury instructions concerning claims and defenses under California’s Song-Beverly Act. Karen Bernstein claimed that BMW breached express and implied warranties provided with her 2013 BMW 328i. BMW denied those claims and asserted that the lawsuit was filed outside the legally permitted time.
Proposed Instructions
The proposed instructions described Bernstein’s burden to prove her warranty claims by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that the evidence must show a claim was more likely true than not. For the claim that BMW failed to promptly repurchase or replace the vehicle after a reasonable number of repair opportunities, the instructions identified elements including a covered defect that substantially impaired the vehicle’s use, value, or safety; delivery of the vehicle to BMW or an authorized repair facility; failure to repair the defect after a reasonable number of opportunities; and failure to promptly replace or buy back the vehicle.
The instructions stated that each delivery of the vehicle for repair counted as a repair opportunity, even if no repair work was performed. They also addressed the implied warranty of merchantability, which concerns whether the vehicle was of the quality a buyer could reasonably expect and fit for ordinary use. The proposed damages instructions covered restitution, reductions based on the vehicle’s prior use, incidental expenses, and a possible civil penalty of up to twice the actual damages for a willful violation.
Court’s Order
The court asked the parties to respond in writing, with legal citations, by noon on September 13, 2019. The questions concerned whether damages differed between the express and implied warranty claims; whether BMW was asserting a statute-of-limitations defense and how it applied; whether Bernstein claimed the vehicle had a defect at the time of sale; when she discovered the defect; and when the vehicle was first presented to BMW’s authorized repair facility for repair. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying warranty claims or state a final verdict. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley issued the order.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.