“Medrazo presented evidence of 'injury in fact,' in that the motorcycle she and her boyfriend were interested in purchasing did not carry a hanger tag showing dealer-added charges, and that she was not informed of the dealer-added charges or the total price of the motorcycle until she was presented with the sales contract,” wrote Justice Thomas L. Willhite Jr. “This evidence is sufficient to establish that she suffered a concrete, particularized, and actual invasion of an interest legally protected by section 11712.5 and section 24014, i.e., the disclosure -- before a decision to purchase a specific motorcycle is made -- of the MSRP and any dealer-added charges for all new motorcycles offered for sale.”
The justices also ruled that “Medrazo has forfeited any issue regarding her CLRA claim by failing to address that specific claim in her opening brief."
Restitution to be a trial issue. Barring a settlement, Kreig said the case should be retried later this year. At that time the new judge would hear issues that were not resolved in the initial trial or the appeal, including the amount of restitution that would be paid should Medrazo prevail.
“If, on retrial, the court determines that Honda North Hollywood’s sale of motorcycles without hanger tags (or without tags that disclosed dealer-added charges) violated the UCL, class members will be entitled to restitution of any money ‘which may have been acquired [by Honda North Hollywood] by means of such unfair competition’ – i.e., the dealer-added charges that were not disclosed on hanger tags,” Justice Willhite wrote.
The appellate decision so far remains “unpublished,” legal-speak which means it cannot be cited as a precedent in other cases. However, Kreig says he plans to seek publication for the ruling from the appeals court.
