http://www.korperlemonlaw.com/korper-appellate-wins.htm
"Appellate Wins of the Law Offices of René Korper
Sometimes a party is dissatisfied with the jury’s verdict against it, and files an appeal. Whether it is the manufacturer unhappy that the jury did not accept its arguments, or the consumer whose rights were not upheld in the trial court, the Law Offices of René Korper is usually willing to continue representing its clients on appeal:
Following are some of the significant appellate successes of The Law Offices of René Korper:
Jiagbogu v. Mercedes-Benz: Mr. Jiagbogu purchased a 12-cylinder Mercedes sedan, which developed various engine and transmission defects over time. At trial, Mercedes argued that, because the vehicle had almost 100,000 miles on its odometer, Mr. Jiagbogu had obtained full use of the vehicle, and so was not entitled to a refund. Alternately, Mercedes argued that it should get a $46,000 credit for Mr. Jiagbogu’s use of the vehicle. The trial judge sided with Mr. Jiagbogu and rejected these arguments, and the jury decided in favor of Mr. Jiagbogu. Mercedes appealed, and the appellate court not only rejected all of Mercedes’s arguments, but also issued a published decision so that future consumers would not have to face these arguments again from any warrantor.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded, Mercedes lost on appeal.
Contreras v. Ford: Ms. Contreras purchased a brand new Saleen Mustang that, shortly after purchase, began to backfire and experience significantly reduced performance. The dealership advised Ms. Contreras to add a supercharger to the vehicle to alleviate these concerns. After the supercharger was added, Ford claimed that the aftermarket supercharger had caused the problems with the vehicle, and that the installation of the supercharger voided Ford’s warranty.
The trial judge decided that some of Ms. Contreras’s problems were minor as a matter of law, and would not let the jury decide that part of her case. The trial court also imposed a heavier burden of proof on Ms. Contreras than the law allows, and gave jury instructions – proposed by Ford – that misstated the law. The jury returned a verdict against Ms. Contreras, but she appealed and the appellate court agreed with her.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded after Defendants lost on appeal.
Interlandi v. Mercedes-Benz: Mr. Interlandi purchased a Mercedes-Benz SL 500, which consistently pulled to the right. Mercedes claimed that the defect was minor and did not warrant a repurchase of the vehicle. The jury found that Mercedes had violated the Song-Beverly Act, but awarded $0 in damages. Mr. Interlandi appealed, arguing that, if Mercedes violated the law, he was automatically entitled to a refund. The appellate court agreed, and ordered a new trial only on the issue of the amount of his damages. Mercedes repurchased the car after the Court of Appeal decision.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded after Mercedes lost on appeal.
Eslamieh v. Coachman Industries: Mr. Eslamieh purchased a defective Coachmen motor home, and the jury not only told Coachmen to refund his money but also imposed a $175,000.00 civil penalty. Coachmen appealed only the civil penalty, arguing that the trial court should have instructed the jury that it could impose a civil penalty only if Coachmen had acted in bad faith, with malice, or with some other “deliberate evil purpose.” The appellate court agreed with Mr. Eslamieh that the jury could impose a civil penalty on Coachmen because it found that Coachmen had intentionally refused to refund Mr. Eslamieh’s money despite knowing that it ought to do so.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded, $175,000.00 civil penalty imposed,
Coachmen lost on appeal.
Mexia v. Rinker Boats: Mr. Mexia purchased a Rinker boat. For approximately three years the vessel functioned properly. Then it began ingesting ocean water into the engine. This problem, once it began, continued to occur even after several repair attempts. Rinker claimed that it was not liable for Mr. Mexia’s damages because the implied warranty of merchantability had a duration of only one year and the defect did not manifest until over one year after purchase of the boat and brought a motion to have the case dismissed against Rinker Boats. The trial court agreed with Rinker and dismissed the case as to Rinker. Mr. Mexia appealed, claiming that although the defect did not manifest until years later, the defect was present at the time of purchase and it therefore did not matter that it was not discovered until later.
JURY AWARD: The Court of Appeal agreed with Mr. Mexia and reinstated the case, thereby creating an important precedent in favor of consumers. The defendants repurchased the boat after the court’s ruling.
Crocker v. Jaguar: This case went to trial based on an engine problem and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Mrs. Crocker in the amount that she had paid for the car and, in addition, awarded her a civil penalty. Jaguar appealed the case because evidence at trial revealed that the dealership had sold her the top of the line Jaguar but delivered a less expensive model.
JURY AWARD: The Court of Appeal held that there was sufficient evidence of the discrepancy between the vehicle bought and the one delivered, that the evidence was properly admitted, and that the verdict would stand."
"Appellate Wins of the Law Offices of René Korper
Sometimes a party is dissatisfied with the jury’s verdict against it, and files an appeal. Whether it is the manufacturer unhappy that the jury did not accept its arguments, or the consumer whose rights were not upheld in the trial court, the Law Offices of René Korper is usually willing to continue representing its clients on appeal:
Following are some of the significant appellate successes of The Law Offices of René Korper:
Jiagbogu v. Mercedes-Benz: Mr. Jiagbogu purchased a 12-cylinder Mercedes sedan, which developed various engine and transmission defects over time. At trial, Mercedes argued that, because the vehicle had almost 100,000 miles on its odometer, Mr. Jiagbogu had obtained full use of the vehicle, and so was not entitled to a refund. Alternately, Mercedes argued that it should get a $46,000 credit for Mr. Jiagbogu’s use of the vehicle. The trial judge sided with Mr. Jiagbogu and rejected these arguments, and the jury decided in favor of Mr. Jiagbogu. Mercedes appealed, and the appellate court not only rejected all of Mercedes’s arguments, but also issued a published decision so that future consumers would not have to face these arguments again from any warrantor.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded, Mercedes lost on appeal.
Contreras v. Ford: Ms. Contreras purchased a brand new Saleen Mustang that, shortly after purchase, began to backfire and experience significantly reduced performance. The dealership advised Ms. Contreras to add a supercharger to the vehicle to alleviate these concerns. After the supercharger was added, Ford claimed that the aftermarket supercharger had caused the problems with the vehicle, and that the installation of the supercharger voided Ford’s warranty.
The trial judge decided that some of Ms. Contreras’s problems were minor as a matter of law, and would not let the jury decide that part of her case. The trial court also imposed a heavier burden of proof on Ms. Contreras than the law allows, and gave jury instructions – proposed by Ford – that misstated the law. The jury returned a verdict against Ms. Contreras, but she appealed and the appellate court agreed with her.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded after Defendants lost on appeal.
Interlandi v. Mercedes-Benz: Mr. Interlandi purchased a Mercedes-Benz SL 500, which consistently pulled to the right. Mercedes claimed that the defect was minor and did not warrant a repurchase of the vehicle. The jury found that Mercedes had violated the Song-Beverly Act, but awarded $0 in damages. Mr. Interlandi appealed, arguing that, if Mercedes violated the law, he was automatically entitled to a refund. The appellate court agreed, and ordered a new trial only on the issue of the amount of his damages. Mercedes repurchased the car after the Court of Appeal decision.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded after Mercedes lost on appeal.
Eslamieh v. Coachman Industries: Mr. Eslamieh purchased a defective Coachmen motor home, and the jury not only told Coachmen to refund his money but also imposed a $175,000.00 civil penalty. Coachmen appealed only the civil penalty, arguing that the trial court should have instructed the jury that it could impose a civil penalty only if Coachmen had acted in bad faith, with malice, or with some other “deliberate evil purpose.” The appellate court agreed with Mr. Eslamieh that the jury could impose a civil penalty on Coachmen because it found that Coachmen had intentionally refused to refund Mr. Eslamieh’s money despite knowing that it ought to do so.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded, $175,000.00 civil penalty imposed,
Coachmen lost on appeal.
Mexia v. Rinker Boats: Mr. Mexia purchased a Rinker boat. For approximately three years the vessel functioned properly. Then it began ingesting ocean water into the engine. This problem, once it began, continued to occur even after several repair attempts. Rinker claimed that it was not liable for Mr. Mexia’s damages because the implied warranty of merchantability had a duration of only one year and the defect did not manifest until over one year after purchase of the boat and brought a motion to have the case dismissed against Rinker Boats. The trial court agreed with Rinker and dismissed the case as to Rinker. Mr. Mexia appealed, claiming that although the defect did not manifest until years later, the defect was present at the time of purchase and it therefore did not matter that it was not discovered until later.
JURY AWARD: The Court of Appeal agreed with Mr. Mexia and reinstated the case, thereby creating an important precedent in favor of consumers. The defendants repurchased the boat after the court’s ruling.
Crocker v. Jaguar: This case went to trial based on an engine problem and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Mrs. Crocker in the amount that she had paid for the car and, in addition, awarded her a civil penalty. Jaguar appealed the case because evidence at trial revealed that the dealership had sold her the top of the line Jaguar but delivered a less expensive model.
JURY AWARD: The Court of Appeal held that there was sufficient evidence of the discrepancy between the vehicle bought and the one delivered, that the evidence was properly admitted, and that the verdict would stand."
