On Dec. 8, 2013, plaintiff Ivonne Goodrich, 38, a medical assistant, went to Elmer Field Auto Sales, an automobile dealership, on a referral from a friend. Goodrich had bad credit (with an under 500 score) and needed a car for transportation to and from work, among other things. Goodrich had $4,000 for a down payment, but Elmer Field claimed that she did not qualify for the purchase of a 2007 Toyota Rav4, which it valued at $11,995. However, Elmer Field told Goodrich that if she had more for the down payment, it could finance the vehicle to her at 20.745 percent. The dealer’s sales staff also assured Goodrich that the RAV4 had never been in a collision. The dealer did not provide a CarFax report, but did use a National Motor Vehicle Title Information System report, which showed no accidents. Goodrich returned the next day with $5,200 to put down on the vehicle. After all charges, on an as-is transaction, Goodrich purchased the Rav4 for $17,151 (including interest). Thus, with $5,200 down, Goodrich still owed $11,951 under the purchase contract. One month after purchase, Goodrich began to have engine problems. She subsequently took the car to a local mechanic, who advised her that there was no oil in the engine. One month after that, the same thing occurred to Goodrich’s Rav4, and another mechanic was consulted. The problem continued over the next four months, with no work being performed by Elmer Field, as it could not perform any repairs since it did not have a license with the Bureau of Auto Repair. In May 2014, Goodrich was in an accident that resulted in damage to the driver’s side of the Rav4. During repairs, the body shop advised Goodrich that the right, front of the vehicle had been in a prior collision. Goodrich had no further contact with Elmer Field, but stopped driving the RAV4 and retained counsel. Goodrich sued the operator of Elmer Field Auto Sales, Sepulveda Car Corp., and the automobile finance company, Bankers Auto Acceptance Corp., which was doing business as Time Finance Co. Goodrich alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted a breach of warranty. Goodrich testified that had she known that the subject Rav4 was in any prior accidents, she never would have bought the vehicle. She also claimed that when she first began to have trouble with the engine, she called Elmer Field about it, but the company failed to address the issue. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that Elmer Field previously purchased the 2007 Toyota Rav4 at a dealer auction for $7,500 in November 2013 and then sold the vehicle to Goodrich for $17,151 (including interest) without providing a CarFax report. Counsel contended that the defendants failed to disclose the prior collision, in violation of their duties under the California Vehicle Code. Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that the defendants’ actions constituted fraud and a misrepresentation under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Defense counsel contended that Goodrich never called Elmer Field when she allegedly began to have problems with the Rav4’s engine, so Goodrich’s claims for repair were unsubstantiated since Elmer Field was not given the opportunity to view and confirm any alleged service problems. However, counsel argued that even if Goodrich had brought the vehicle in with alleged problems, Elmer Field could not perform any repairs since it did not have a license with the Bureau of Auto Repair. Defense counsel also contended that Goodrich’s Rav4 had exceeded the threshold specified under the Used Car Lemon Law, General Business Law article 11-A, § 198-b et seq., which dictates that a vehicle may not undergo three repair attempts and/or be out of service for 15 days during the first 90 days or 4,000 miles following its purchase. Specifically, defense counsel noted that Goodrich had driven 10,000 miles in 6 months. In addition, defense counsel argued that Elmer Field performed a safety check of the subject Rav4 after it purchased the vehicle at a dealer auction in November 2013. Counsel contended that although the dealership didn’t provide a CarFax report, it did provide a National Motor Vehicle Title Information System report, which showed no prior accidents. Thus, counsel argued that there was no frame damage, that an inspection had been performed, and that the only damage was de minimis and not subject to disclosure. Defense counsel further argued that any alleged damage to the vehicle was caused by an accident during Goodrich’s ownership., Goodrich sought recovery of her $5,200 down payment, payments made, cost of repairs, loss of use, and emotional damages. Thus, during closing statements, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to awarded Goodrich $15,000 in total damages.