Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/failure-to-recall-219
Timestamp: 2020-08-11 06:24:17
Document Index: 82135427

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 11', '§ 1633', '§ 1633', '§ 1633', '§ 1401', '§ 1633', '§ 1401', '§ 1633']

What is failure to recall?
Elements to Establish a Claim for Failure to Recall
Plaintiff must prove all of the following:
That the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the product was dangerous or was likely to be dangerous when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner;
That the defendant became aware of this defect after the product was sold;
That the defendant failed to recall/retrofit or warn of the danger of the product;
That a reasonable manufacturer/distributor/seller under the same or similar circumstances would have recalled/retroﬁtted the product;
That the defendant’s failure to recall/retroﬁt the product was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.
CACI No. 1223 — Revised October 2004
“Failure to conduct an adequate retrofit campaign may constitute negligence apart from the issue of defective design.” (Hernandez v. Badger Construction Equipment Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1791, 1827. In Lunghi v. Clark Equipment Co. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 485, the court observed that, where the evidence showed that the manufacturer became aware of dangers after the product had been on the market, the jury “could still have found that Clark’s knowledge of the injuries caused by these features imposed a duty to warn of the danger, and/or a duty to conduct an adequate retroﬁt campaign.” The failure to meet the standard of reasonable care with regard to either of these duties could have supported a finding of negligence. (Id. at 494.)
The Third Restatement of the Law of Torts (1998), Product Liability § 11, provides:
One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by the seller's failure to recall a product after the time of sale or distribution if
a governmental directive issued pursuant to a statute or administrative regulation specifically requires the seller or distributor to recall the product; or
the seller or distributor, in the absence of a recall requirement under Subsection (a)(1), undertakes to recall the product; and
the seller or distributor fails to act as a reasonable person in recalling the product.
Duty to Disclose All Facts Related to Recall — Car Dealerships
Gutierrez v. Carmax Auto Superstores Cal. (2018) 19 Cal. App. 5th 1234 “On the question whether [plaintiff] pleaded sufficient facts to establish CarMax had a duty to disclose the safety recall, we conclude her allegations are sufficient.” (Id. at 1239.) Gutierrez contends the duty to disclose existed because CarMax:
had actual knowledge of the recall before the sale of the vehicle and
made partial representations about the vehicle that were misleading because the existence of the recall, a material fact, had not been disclosed.
“We conclude her allegations are sufficient to establish for pleading purposes the existence of the safety recall was a material fact and, by reasonable inference, the existence of CarMax’s knowledge of the recall before the sale.” (Id.)
Useful Rulings on Failure to Recall
The Court intends to Sustain the demurrer to the 1st cause of action without leave to amend. The Court intends to Overrule the demurrer to the 2nd cause of action. FCA's objection nos. 1 and 4 are sustained. Objection nos. 2, 3, and 5 are overruled. Answer to be filed in 10 days. (CRC Rule 3.1320(j).) Analysis: A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleadi...
..) Any valid cause of action overcomes a general demurrer. (Quelimane Co., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38-39.) - FCA's Evidentiary Objections filed with Reply and Plaintiffs' Response Thereto The Court intends to Sustain objections nos. 1 and 4. The newspaper report and minute order relating to Mr. Yelchin's case are irrelevant to this action since they relate to a diffe...
The court addresses the evidentiary issues. Defendant Volvo Car USA, LLC's evidentiary objections 3, 6 and 7 are overruled; objections 1 and 2 are overruled because the objected to testimony is not specified [Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation v. East Bay Union of Machinists, Local 1304, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, et al. (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 675, 712]; objections 4, 5, 8 and 9 ar...
..oduct Liability-Express Warranty and Product Liability-Implied Warranty of Merchantability causes of action and DENIED as to the Product Liability – Negligence and Negligence/Negligent Repair causes of action. The court addresses the issues as framed by Volvo's notice of motion. NOTICED ISSUE NO. 1. Volvo moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, as to the followin...
PERRY PARKS ET AL VS WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY INC ET AL
PERRY PARKS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, et al., Defendants. Case No.: BC552067 Hearing Date: December 9, 2016 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: (1) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS DUE TO INTENTIONAL SPOLIATION (2) MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION BACKGROUND Plaintiff Perry Parks was the recipient of an artificial hip implant—known as a “Profemur” device—designed and manufactured by Defe...
..ailure to warn, (3) negligence, (4) negligence – failure to recall/retrofit, and (5) breach of express warranty, against Defendant Wright Medical; and (6) negligence, against Defendant ASD. JUDICIAL NOTICE Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice in support of the opposition to the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS • Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’ evidence...
CASTELLANO v. SEYMOUR MIDWEST, LLC.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a 2nd Amended Complaint.Plaintiff moves for leave to file a 2nd amended complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. There is no trial date set.Defendant Seymour West, LLC opposes the motion on the following grounds: plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 3.1324(b) by failing to explain the one year delay in seeking amendment after discovery of the new facts; t...
..eposed. Plaintiff replied to the opposition.“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a...
Recent Rulings on Failure to Recall
GERARDO RODRIGUEZ VS HOF'S HUTS RESTAURANTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
In the face of [employee’s] failure to recall electronically signing the 2011 agreement, the fact the 2011 agreement had an electronic signature on it in the name of [employee], and a date and time stamp for the signature, was insufficient to support a finding that the electronic signature was, in fact, “the act of” [employee]. (Civ. Code, § 1633.9, subd. (a).)
As an initial matter, Plaintiffs are partly correct in arguing that a toxic-torts plaintiff’s failure to recall a particular product is not sufficient to establish an absence of triable issues of fact on exposure. (Opposition at p. 8.) Toxic torts generally occur over long time frames, and a plaintiff’s failure to recall a particular product from decades earlier is not necessarily sufficient to shift the burden from defendant to plaintiff on summary judgment. (See Weber v.
Although a plaintiff’s failure to recall use of a given product may show the absence of triable issues where the testimony demonstrates that the plaintiff is generally able to recall the products they worked with during that time frame (See Weber v. John Crane, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1440–41), NCH presents no such context here. To obtain summary judgment, NCH must make a showing that plaintiff will be unable to prove its case by any means.
Although a plaintiff’s failure to recall use of a given product may show the absence of triable issues, the burden is on the moving party to show that the testimony demonstrates that the plaintiff is generally able to recall the products they worked with during that time frame, such that their recall would be of use to the trier of fact. (See Weber, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1440–41.)
Plaintiffs’ failure to recall signing their respective agreements is sufficient to shift the burden back to defendant. (Id. at 1054-55; Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 844.) “An … electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person. The act of the person may be shown in any manner, including a showing of the efficacy of any security procedure applied to determine the person to which the electronic record or electronic signature was attributable.”
A plaintiff’s failure to recall signing his or her agreement is sufficient to shift the burden back to Defendant. (Id. at 1054-55; Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 844.) “An … electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person. The act of the person may be shown in any manner, including a showing of the efficacy of any security procedure applied to determine the person to which the electronic record or electronic signature was attributable.”
This does not necessarily depend upon the failure to recall vehicles affected by the Engine Defect, but rather, the concealment of the Engine Defect in marketing materials. Accordingly, this ground for demurrer is not persuasive. 2. Fifth Cause of Action (Fraudulent Inducement–Intentional Misrepresentation)., A. Re: Failure to Allege Specific Facts.
ALISTAIR MCMILLAN VS WHEELS LABS, INC
Plaintiff vaguely refers to previous accidents and contrasts Defendant’s failure to recall their bicycles to the actions of Lyft and Uber. But these allegations do not show advance knowledge and conscious disregard or extreme indifference to the rights of others. There are no specific facts describing these associated accidents and there is no indication that Lyft and Uber’s bicycles are even the same as the ones used by Defendant or involved in this case.
PATIENTS CORP. VS. MICHELLE DENISE ZEMBA AND DOES 1-20
Zemba maintains that Wright’s failure to recall which lawyer assisted him in preparing the false notice is a weak, unpersuasive defense. Zemba asserts Patients Corp.’s fraud on the City extends beyond the false notice to include fraudulent amendments to the corporation’s articles, false stock certificates, and false loan and sale agreements, all prepared by Katcho.
RENNA CHEY VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
The Department notes that Chey stated his failure to recall on numerous other occasions during the interview. AR 824, 832, 835, 840, 841, 844. Opp. at 10. This is true, although witnesses sometimes say that an event did not happen when they really have no recollection. More important, the Hearing Officer found that Chey lacked credibility because he was caught lying in his testimony. Chey initially testified he ran a certain radio background check using his car radio. AR 1935.
LAURA DELGADO VS LOS ANGELES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.
Delgado’s Failure to Recall Espinoza Delgado argues there is insufficient evidence that she made untruthful statements with respect to her inability to recall Espinoza. Her 2015 IAB interview occurred three years after she last saw Espinoza, and the booking photo Mendoza showed her did not resemble Espinoza as she saw him in the 3100 row. In the photo, he had a shaved head and did not wear glasses. In September- November 2012, he had grown his hair out for trial and wore glasses.
ANTONY BABAKHONOFF VS BURGER KING CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL.
The failure to recall signing an agreement does not overcome an otherwise reasonable inference arising from the plaintiff’s signature that plaintiff agreed to the contract. Joseph E. Di Loreto, Inc. v. O'Neill (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 149, 160-61. The Court also finds that it appears Plaintiff signed his signature in a different manner on several documents. Suppl. Shin Decl., Exh. D.
The failure to recall signing an agreement does not overcome an otherwise reasonable inference arising from the plaintiff’s signature that plaintiff agreed to the contract. Joseph E. Di Loreto, Inc. v. O'Neill (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 149, 160-61. "It is well established, in the absence of fraud, overreaching or excusable neglect, that one who signs an instrument may not avoid the impact of its terms on the ground that he failed to read the instrument before signing it." (Hulsey v.
Even assuming the latter, Ceja’s failure to recall is not proof that the boom lift was not parked on the street. As such, the issue is properly stated as follows: whether a categorical exception to Civil Code section 1714 should be made exempting a property owner from potential liability to individuals who were injured because the property owner failed to secure an off-site heavy-duty vehicle belonging to another’s independent contractor.
MAUREEN BANNISTER VS. MARINIDENCE OPCO, LLC, ET AL
Code § 1633.9 (a); see Ruiz, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 844 [“In the face of Ruiz’s failure to recall electronically signing the 2011 agreement, the fact the 2011 agreement had an electronic signature on it in the name of Ruiz, and a date and time stamp for the signature, was insufficient to support a ﬁnding that the electronic signature was, in fact, ‘the act of Ruiz. (Civ. Code, § 1633.9, subd. (a).)”].)
MARIA TEUTLA VS GI & DO INC ET AL
For another, the deposition transcript reflects that Chung only occasionally cited cognitive impairments from the medical treatment as reasons for her failure to recall. Explaining these failures to recall, Chung testified in some detail about when she was diagnosed with cancer (Chung Depo. p. 28) and her continual treatment of the cancer since the diagnosis (Chung Depo. p. 29). This should serve as sufficient testimony to understand Chung’s medical condition in this FEHA action.
In the face of Ruiz's failure to recall signing the 2011 agreement, Moss Bros. had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature was authentic (Evid. Code, § 1401), that is, it was what Moss Bros. claimed it was: ‘the act of’ Ruiz (Civ. Code, § 1633.9, subd. (a)).” (Italics in Ruiz.) Espejo v.
ADOTEVI AKUE V. PRODO LABORATORIES, INC.
In the face of Ruiz's failure to recall signing the 2011 agreement, Moss Bros. had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature was authentic (Evid. Code, § 1401), that is, it was what Moss Bros. claimed it was: ‘the act of’ Ruiz (Civ. Code, § 1633.9, subd. (a)).” (Italics in original.) Defendant has met its initial burden that an agreement to arbitrate exists between Plaintiff and Prodo.
AMY HEATON VS MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., A FOREIGN COMPANY, ET AL.
Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s failure to recall the Arbitration Agreement or her signing of the same is insufficient to avoid the Arbitration Agreement. Defendant argues that it has presented admissible evidence that the template Arbitration Agreement contains the terms of the Arbitration Agreement that Plaintiff signed. Defendant asserts that here, the Wilmoth Declaration, which establishes a proper foundation for Ms.