Plaintiff Cassandra Mazyck purchased a certified preowned Lexus through Toyota’s award-winning “L/Certified” program. After two years of ownership she claimed it pulled to the right and could not be fixed, and that the problem resulted from frame damage that had not been found in the presale inspection. She sued the dealership and recovered all her claimed damages plus attorney fees in a settlement, but continued to pursue public injunctive relief against Toyota, arguing that its policies and procedures “mislead” the public about the quality of certified preowned Lexus vehicles. The requested injunction would have required Toyota to overhaul its L/Certified program and decertify tens of thousands of recently sold vehicles along with those currently for sale in California. After a bench trial, the court found no factual basis for the injunction because plaintiff failed to prove either that her vehicle should not have been certified, or that the program misleads the public in any way. The court also found no equitable justification for the requested injunction, which it described as “unreasonable” and “draconian.”
The plaintiff appealed and Toyota retained Horvitz & Levy to respond to plaintiff’s appeal. Plaintiff argued the judgment was not supported by substantial evidence and challenged several evidentiary rulings. The Court of Appeal rejected all of plaintiff’s arguments, holding that she fell short of meeting her burden to overcome the trial court’s factual findings in favor of Toyota, “which dooms her causes of action.” “Without any proven misrepresentation by Toyota, the foundation supporting each of [her] claims crumbles.” The court declined to review any of the challenged evidentiary rulings because plaintiff had not shown they were prejudicial.
Mazyck v. Toyota Motor Sales 2607531 
