Zhadan v. Downtown Los Angeles Motor Distributors, Inc.
Citation | 100 Cal.App.3d 821,161 Cal.Rptr. 225 |
Parties | Zina ZHADAN, Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant and Respondent, v. DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES MOTOR DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Appellant. Civ. 54960. |
Decision Date | 31 December 1979 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
David R. Glickman, Beverly Hills and Ronald G. Rutiz, Los Angeles, for plaintiff, cross-defendant and respondent.
Downtown Los Angeles Motor Distributors, Inc. (erroneously sued herein as Downtown L. A. Motors and hereinafter referred to as Motors) appeals a judgment in favor of plaintiff Zina Zhadan, entered pursuant to jury verdict, in this action to recover compensatory and punitive damages for the conversion of an automobile.
Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages for the seizure and retention by Motors of her 1967 Mercedes Benz 230 SL automobile after she failed to pay a $1,952.52 repair bill for work which she claimed she never authorized. She alleged that the defendant in the repair work failed to comply with the provisions of California Business and Professions Code section 9884.9 requiring a written estimate of charges and advance authorization; 1 that some of the repairs were not necessary, were not done, or were done improperly; that defendant withheld the car from her for failure to pay; and that when she obtained possession defendant repossessed and converted the car. She claimed both actual damages and punitive damages based on defendant's malicious and oppressive conduct.
At the first trial in this litigation the jury returned a verdict against defendant Motors for $5,342 general and $175,000 punitive damages. The trial court concluded the punitive damages were excessive and ordered a new trial pursuant to defendant's motion unless plaintiff consented to a reduction of punitive damages to $50,000. Plaintiff would not consent and on appeal the court reversed (Zhadan v. Downtown L. A. Motors (1976) 66 Cal.App.3d 481, 136 Cal.Rptr. 132). At the second trial in December 1977 the jury returned a verdict of $5,260 general and $90,000 punitive damages. The trial court denied defendant's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for new trial, and defendant has appealed.
It was established at trial that Zina Zhadan was in May of 1973 the owner of a Mercedes Benz 230 SL automobile she had purchased from a private party for $3,500 in June 1972. Because there was no substantial variance in the facts introduced by plaintiff at the first and second trials, we reproduce herein with minor modifications those facts as ably summarized by this court in Zhadan v. Downtown L. A. Motors, supra, 66 Cal.App.3d 481, 136 Cal.Rptr. 132. The trial commenced with Ms. Zhadan's testimony.
across the street to a closed gasoline station and it was left in the area of the pumps. She locked the car, left the keys with a girl friend, and departed for New York.
Mark Slotkin, owner of Carpet Bags of America and plaintiff's employer at the time of these events, corroborated that she went to New York with him and that while there he admonished her not to make any more phone calls concerning repairs for the Mercedes because their time was limited. Sometime after their return, in June of 1973, he said Ms. Zhadan came into his office crying and upset, carrying a sheaf of Mr. Adams, the owner of the Bon Voyage Garage, appeared as a witness on behalf of plaintiff and testified as he had at the first trial. (Zhadan v. Downtown L. A. Motors, supra, 66 Cal.App.3d 481, 488-489, 136 Cal.Rptr. 132, 136.) He said, however, that the engine had a new short block. He corrected the cooling system, tightened the distributor, installed a new air filter, changed the spark plugs and adjusted the valves for Ms. Zhadan.
papers which represented the repair bill for the Mercedes and asked him what to do. He suggested she should get her car out of defendant's possession, take it to another garage to have it checked, and if it was not in good condition or there was a possibility of a mechanic's lien, she should sell the car.
Nicholas Shammas, called by plaintiff pursuant to Evidence Code section 776, testified that as defendant's present president he is responsible for administrative activities meeting with department heads, determining company policy and making financial decisions. Although he denied any familiarity with automobile mechanics or repair orders, he said he instructed his employees to comply with consumer protection laws. He said it was the usual practice for the service writer when a customer telephoned a verbal authorization to record the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rufo v. Simpson
...... judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles" County, Hiroshi Fujisake, Judge. Affirmed. . \xC2"... (Gatton v. A.P. Green Services, Inc. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 688, 692.) Plaintiffs ...Ford Motor Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, 416; In re Hitchings ... time when defendant inflicted the injury]; Zhadan v. Downtown Los Angeles Motor Distributors, Inc. ......
-
McCoy v. Hearst Corp.
...... (See, e.g., Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 352, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3013, ...295, citing Kurata v. Los Angeles News Pub. Co. (1935) 4 Cal.App.2d 224, 227-228, ...Ford Motor Co. (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 841, 853, 139 Cal.Rptr. ... (Zhadan v. Downtown Los Angeles Motor Distributors, Inc. ......
-
Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc.
......Devlin found a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) form in the glove compartment of the Spirit ...796, 484 P.2d 964; see also Zhadan v. Downtown L.A. Motors (1976) 66 Cal.App.3d 481, 497, 136 ...Downtown Los Angeles Motor Distributors, Inc. (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 821, ......
-
Sprague v. Equifax, Inc.
...Cal.App.3d 451, 136 Cal.Rptr. 653, although less than amounts upheld by the appellate court in Zhadan v. Downtown Los Angeles Motor Distributors, Inc. (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 821, 161 Cal.Rptr. 225, and Godfrey v. Steinpress (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 154, 180 Cal.Rptr. Our review of this order is......