Plaintiff Maximillian Bowman purchased a used Tesla still covered by the manufacturer’s express warranty. After the warranty expired, Bowman complained about problems with the vehicle’s stereo, and discovered that the prior owner had experienced similar issues. Bowman sued Tesla for breach of warranty under the California Commercial Code and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, pressing the novel theory that he was automatically assigned the prior owner’s supposed breach-of-warranty claim when the vehicle was sold to him. The district court granted summary judgment to Tesla, rejecting Bowman’s novel automatic-assignment theory.
Tesla retained Horvitz & Levy to defend the judgment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that under California law, the assignor of a cause of action must manifest an intention to transfer it. Because the prior owner did not expressly or intentionally assign any claims to Bowman, he could not assert any such supposed claims. The court also rejected Bowman’s automatic-assignment theory as “merely an attempt to extend a warranty that has already expired.”
Bowman v. Tesla 
