United States Ninth Circuit

In this diversity action brought by plaintiffs whose attempt to purchase a Fresno Mercedes-Benz dealership was unsuccessful due to defendant Mercedes-Benz's exercise of a right of first refusal (ROFR), summary judgment in favor of defendant is: 1) affirmed in part, where California Vehicle Code section 11713.3(t)(2) does not require a franchisor to send notice of the intent to exercise an ROFR to the prospective transferee, but the notice plaintiffs received from defendant was both timely and in proper form; and 2) reversed in part, where plaintiffs have an implied right of action under California Vehicle Code section 11713.3(t)(6) to recover its expenses from a franchisor that usurps its contract by exercising an ROFR.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/05/2014
• Published 11/05/2014

Judges

• Gettleman

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel