On June 26, 2013, plaintiff Constantin Zubin, 39, a medical supply store owner, and Mustafa Fadhil Al Bayatti purchased a new 2013 Toyota FJ Cruiser from Mossy Toyota, in San Diego. The purchase included a standard manufacturer’s warranty. Zubin claimed that for the first eight months, the vehicle was driven without any problems. However, he claimed that he began experiencing hesitation and lunging on the freeway and that the check engine light became activated. As a result, he took the vehicle back to Mossy Toyota in February 2014. Over the next seven months, the dealership attempted seven separate adjustments and/or repairs of the vehicle for the same concern, as well as for problems with stalling, difficulty starting, loss of power, and rough idle. The dealer ultimately replaced a coil and the throttle body assembly. Despite the repairs, Zubin claimed the problems were never resolved, causing him to stop driving the vehicle in July 2015. As a result, Zubin attempted to return the vehicle, but it was refused by the manufacturer, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. Zubin sued Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. He alleged that the vehicle’s poor condition constituted a violationof the federal “lemon law,” the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and the state’s “lemon law,” the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, which state that when a manufacturer cannot repair consumer goods after a reasonable number of attempts, it must either replace the defective product or refund the consumer’s money. Prior to the trial, Zubin dismissed his cause of action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Zubin’s counsel contended that the subject vehicle suffered from an intermittent problem with lunging, loss of power, hesitation, stalling, difficulty starting, and rough idle. Counsel further contended that Toyota failed to repair the vehicle after a reasonable number of opportunities and that the vehicle was never fixed. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the vehicle’s poor condition constituted a violation of the Lemon Law, which specifies that a vehicle’s first 24 months and/or 18,000 miles should not include more than four repair attempts and/or 30 days of repair-shop time. Defense counsel contended that after the lawsuit was filed, Zubin took his vehicle to Mossy Toyota, where a Toyota field technical specialist inspected the vehicle and determined that the electronic data (freeze frame data) recovered from the vehicle indicated that someone was disconnecting the connectors on the engine wiring harness, causing the conditions complained of by Zubin. Counsel also contended that although Zubin claimed that the conditions occurred while he was driving the vehicle, the data indicated that the problems occurred when the vehicle was idle, or being started, and in park. Thus, defense counsel argued that the data indicated that if the vehicle was being driven when the alleged problems occurred, the condition would have put the vehicle into “fail safe” mode, which was contrary to Zubin’s description of events and claims that the vehicle suffered from lunging, loss of power, hesitation, stalling, difficulty starting, and rough idle while driving. Defense counsel argued that based on the information from the electronic data recovered from the vehicle, someone was unplugging the connectors, causing the check engine light to activate. Counsel also contended that the problems stopped after the vehicle harness connector was secured following the Toyota field technical specialist’s inspection of the vehicle. Counsel further contended that at the legal inspection during litigation, the vehicle operated normally and without fault. Thus, defense counsel argued that there was no defect in the vehicle’s materials or workmanship and that the vehicle did not violate the Song-Beverly or Magnuson-Moss Acts., Zubin claimed the vehicle experienced malfunctions, including hesitation and lunging on the freeway, the activation of the check engine light, stalling, difficulty starting, loss of power, and rough idle. He contended that the problems compromised the vehicle’s safety and performance. Zubin claimed that as a result, he was not able to use the vehicle as intended, including taking his family on camping trips, and ultimately stopped driving the vehicle all together. He eventually purchased a replacement vehicle. Zubin sought restitution, incidental and consequential damages, and attorney fees and costs. He also accused Toyota Motor Sales of willfully violating the Song-Beverly Act, entitling him to a civil penalty. Defense counsel denied Toyota Motor Sales had willfully violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, arguing that Zubin was not entitled to a civil penalty. Counsel also argued that there was nothing wrong with the vehicle, as electronic data suggested that someone was unplugging the connectors on the engine wiring harness, causing the check engine light to activate, and that the alleged problems ultimately stopped after the vehicle’s harness connector was secured. In addition, defense counsel argued that the vehicle operated normally and without fault at the legal inspection during litigation.