01x41 - Attorney & Mechanic Face-Off

[bunniefuu]

You took the car in to him
for an oil change

because you were going on a trip.

Yes. The car basically
ground to a halt.

You have a witness
who never saw the car.

Correct.

The first time you met
was 20 minutes ago.

- Correct.
- I'm beginning to love this case.

- Is that a good thing?
- Not for you.

[announcer]
This is Judy Justice.

[theme music playing]

[announcer] Joseph Zellmer
is suing auto technician Richard Naef

for car damages from an oil change.

[Kevin]
Court come to order. All rise.

Be seated, please.

[Kevin] Hello, Judge.
We have case number 1080,

Zellmer versus Naef.

- Thanks, Kevin.
- You're welcome.

Mr. Zellmer, you're suing Mr. Naef

because you claim
that as a result of his negligence,

your car required thousands
of dollars' worth of repair?

Yes.

Mr. Naef says that he did
work on your car, changed oil,

and changed some sort of an O-ring.

He said he did all of that work properly,

any subsequent damage
to your car is not his responsibility.

That's what the case is about, correct?

- Correct.
- Yes.

[Judge Judy] Okay. Great. So tell me,
what year, make, and model is this car?

2015 BMW 535i.

[Judge Judy]
And when did you purchase it?

November 2018.

[Judge Judy]
So you purchased it used, from whom?

- CarMax.
- How much did you pay for it?

$30,000.

[Judge Judy] When you
purchased it from CarMax,

was there a warranty on the car?

There were two warranties.

There was remaining time
on the BMW manufacturer's warranty...

- How much time?
- About a year, I believe.

[Judge Judy] Okay.

And I bought an extended warranty
from CarMax also.

- For how long?
- Two or three years.

So then the warranty would have been
good until October of 2021?

Under those terms, the fine print,

they asserted, and I agreed with them,
that this repair was not covered.

I assume you have
that warranty with you?

- I do not. I have not read that...
- Well, just a sec.

I have not read that in years.

[Judge Judy]
Well, that's not my problem.

And just so that I'm clear,

how much did you pay
for this extended warranty from CarMax?

I believe $2,500.

[Judge Judy] Now you noticed that
there was something wrong with the car

in what month and year

that brought you to the defendant's
mechanic shop?

[Joseph] July 2019.

[Judge Judy]
So about six months after you bought it,

certainly well within the warranty period?

Yes.

[Judge Judy] Certainly
a $2,500 warranty lasts for a year.

You said two or three. Okay.

And the equipment that you put in
other than oil was on O-ring?

Well, we did the oil and filter,

and part of the oil filter
is replacing the O-ring also.

[Judge Judy] Okay. Very good.

So you began to have trouble
in July 2019.

- You called CarMax...
- Not yet.

Who did you call?

The problem that first manifested
was small drops of oil in the garage.

- And I've seen that.
- [Joseph] An oil leak, yes.

When I knew that I needed service,

I contacted CarMax and said,
"This might need to be fixed also,"

and they said,
"Take it to our approved repair center,"

which was Performance Center
down the road in Auburn.

- [Judge Judy] That was his?
- Correct.

I'm beginning to love this case.

[laughter]

- Is that a good thing?
- Not for you.

And you took the car in to him
for an oil change

because you were going on a trip?

Not imminent, but soon.
My wife's birthday, yes.

Well, you began seeing trouble
in the beginning of July.

When did you first contact
the defendant?

I'm sure I made an appointment
a couple days

before he did the work on July 30th.

[Judge Judy]
So let me understand.

You saw leaks of oil
in your garage on the 2nd,

- and you didn't deal with it for a month?
- True.

And you picked up the car on what date,
Mr. Zellmer?

[Joseph]
Probably same day, July 30th.

I also asked him to fix the oil leak.

[Judge Judy] Mr. Naef,
did he ask you to fix the oil leak?

Yes. He asked me to take a look at it
and see if I could tell what was leaking.

- And did you do that?
- Yes.

And what was leaking?

There was oil
all around where that O-ring sits,

and running out of it.

So it had been installed improperly.

- Did you tell him that?
- Yes.

Let's go back to you, Mr. Zellmer.

What he said to me was that
he told you that the previous O-ring

had been installed incorrectly,
so there was oil.

That's not true. He did not say that.

He said what we see
on the receipt that he gave me.

And I have it documented right here,

"To be caused by sealed oil filter
last time oil change was performed."

May I see it, please?

It's in the second paragraph.

Kevin, would you show this
to Mr. Zellmer

and tell him if he recalls seeing that?

I'm sure I did.

And whose signature is
at the bottom of that?

[Joseph] It looks like mine.

[Judge Judy] Well,
I'm gonna read to you the diagnosis,

which clearly supports what he says,

find out the source of the oil leak,

and he says he told you what that was.

It's written in here and signed by you.

"Diagnosis, found oil leak to be caused

by improper sealed oil filter.

Tech cleaned the area off
and ran with no current leaks observed.

Recommend customer
have engine steam cleaned

to remove residual oil."

So, you were told
by the defendant there was leakage,

and he told you at the time

that you should have
the engine steam cleaned

because there still may have been
residual oil from the leak.

Okay. Now, that's on the 30th of July.

And I'm assuming that you never had
the engine steam cleaned

before you went on your vacation?

- Correct.
- And where do you live?

Nevada City, California.

And where were you going?

Bodega Bay, on the coast,
about four hours.

And on what day were you going there?

Around September 17th
was my wife's birthday.

[Judge Judy] So you drove the car
the entire month of August?

- Yes.
- And had no issue?

Correct.

Did you notice any more leakage
from the oil in your garage?

I did not.

So for the entire month of August

and half a month of September,

there was no additional leakage

from anywhere that was visible to you?

Correct.

And for at least a month before that,

you had seen leaks
in the garage from oil from the car.

That's what you testified to.

Talking tiny, occasional drops.

Okay. So now, September 17th,
you're celebrating your wife's birthday,

you're taking
the car on a four-hour drive.

- Did you reach your destination?
- We did.

Now you can tell me
what happened with the car.

[dramatic music playing]

- Company gives you a warranty.
- And you read them?

Listen, I know what paragraph nine...

- [Joseph] Okay.
- ...subsection six

of my separation agreement
from my first husband says.

So, don't ask me if I read them.

[theme music playing]

[announcer] Joseph Zellmer
claims auto technician Richard Naef

caused engine damage
after Richard changed his oil.

Okay. So now, September 17th,
you're celebrating your wife's birthday,

you're taking the car
on a four-hour drive.

- Did you reach your destination?
- We did.

Now you can tell me
what happened with the car.

We made it three or so hours,

and about an hour from home,
heading up Highway 70 North,

lights came on

and the car basically ground to a halt.

It, it wasn't quick, I would say
it was over about a half mile,

it just lost power, lost juice,

we were able to get up to the top
of a...an exit,

pulled over, stopped, called BMW.
They said, "You need to have it towed."

So this is what...
generally what you want.

You spent $175 with the defendant
to change an oil filter,

change the oil, check a leak,

and this is what I'm getting so far
from the facts from you.

The entire month of August,
there were no issues with the car.

On the 17th of September,
you were a good husband,

you made arrangements
to take your wife for her birthday

to a lovely inn, it was a four-hour drive
in each direction.

There were no issues that you saw
with the car while you were there.

About an hour away from your home,

which would be after at least
seven hours of highway driving,

the car collapsed.

And you want $10,000
from the defendant.

That's what you're suing him for?

Now do you understand
why you're in trouble?

- [Joseph] Well, that's...
- Do you understand why...you,

you understand
why you're in a little bit of trouble?

- That's when the trouble started.
- [Judge Judy] Yeah.

But it's my understanding
from reading your papers,

that you have a witness.

But before I get to your witness, sir,

did you have the car towed
back to CarMax?

- No.
- Where did you have the car towed to?

The BMW dealership
in Roseville, California.

Did you call CarMax?

[Joseph] I definitely contacted CarMax
as soon as the car broke down

and I knew I was facing...
at first, I was told a $7,000 bill.

[Judge Judy]
And you're a smart gentleman.

You contacted CarMax
because it was your belief

that they were responsible
under their warranty?

I hadn't read their warranty yet,
but I sure hope so.

[Judge Judy]
But...oh, well, you should have.

- You're a lawyer, are you not?
- Yes, I am.

[Judge Judy] Just a second.
Yes, you are a lawyer...

Yes.

[Judge Judy]
...and yes, you have a warranty,

and yes, you should have read it before
so that you know what is covered.

I mean, when I buy a car, you know,
the company gives you a warranty.

- And you read them?
- Just a second. Do I read them?

Listen, I know what paragraph nine,
subsection...

- [Joseph] Okay.
- ...six of my separation agreement

- from my first husband says.
- Okay.

So, don't ask me if I read them.

I read them!

So, yes. Well, you're paying extra
for something for $2,500,

the answer is,
I would have read it before.

But to me, the issue
was not with this gentleman,

who did a $175 oil change,

but with CarMax
who sold you a car for $30,000,

charged you $2,500 for a warranty,

but you had no warranty from him.

You had a warranty from CarMax,

the people that sold you the car

and the people that sent you
to the defendant.

And the defendant said to you,

"We recommend you
having the engine steam cleaned

because there was residue
of oil in the car

and it may be in places that I can't see."

Now, you want me to call
your witness?

Just a second.
I'm finished with the facts.

So far, those are the facts.

Now, would you stand up
because I understand

that you allegedly are a...
an expert mechanic?

So, before you testify as an expert,

because you have to testify
as an expert

because you never saw the car
before the oil was changed,

so you never saw it
with a defective oil ring previously,

and I assume that you didn't see
the car before it was fixed.

That's correct, Your Honor. I didn't...

[Judge Judy]
All correct. All correct.

So you... what you're doing
is you're testifying from notes.

- That's correct.
- Okay.

So, now tell me,
who do you work for?

I have an independent
BMW repair facility

called BMW Auto Tech in Culver City.

How long do you know,
if you know, Mr. Zellmer?

Twenty minutes ago?

[Judge Judy] Are you being paid
for your testimony today?

- I do.
- You mean you are?

Yes, I am.

Yes, you are being paid
for your testimony today?

I will be paid.

- How much?
- $400.

Now the first time you met
Mr. Zellmer was 20 minutes ago.

- Correct.
- When for the first time

did you review the documents
on which you were prepared to testify?

- Yesterday.
- Have you ever seen this document?

Yes, I have a copy.
I saw that, reviewed that.

Good. Thank you.

When you met Mr. Zellmer
or when you reviewed the documents,

can you tell me, Mr. Benor,

the car had engine trouble,
the engine failed.

- Is that correct?
- Not correct.

It didn't fail completely.
Some components failed.

Okay. And in any of the items
that you read,

did you see who fixed the car?

- [Aaron] Yes, I did, Your Honor.
- [Judge Judy] Who?

BMW of Roseville, California.

[Judge Judy] And how much did
they charge Mr. Zellmer to fix the car?

[Aaron] About $5,500.

I don't want an about.
This is a court.

- [Joseph] May I answer?
- [Judge Judy] Yeah, sure.

- $5,456.95.
- [Judge Judy] Okay.

Now, understanding
that you never saw the car before,

you never saw the car after,

and you are testifying solely
based upon what you're reading...

- Correct, Your Honor.
- ...is what you're reading

indicate to you that there was oil
somewhere in the engine?

- Yes.
- And that oil

was the proximate cause
of the trouble that the car had

that Mr. and Mrs. Zellmer experienced
on their way home from holiday.

That's the result of the oil leak, yes.

There was oil in the engine?

Around the engine block, yes.

Is there anything
that you read that you can show me

that tells you how long that oil
had been there?

No.

- So it could have been there for a month?
- Could be.

- Could have been there for two months?
- Could be.

- Two months? Could have been?
- Yes.

There's no way of knowing,
but that corroded enough of the engine

for it to fail on the 19th of September.

- [Joseph] On the date.
- [Aaron] Yeah. Okay. I see it.

[indistinct remarks]

- [Judge Judy] Now...
- September 19th.

Okay.

Now, I want you to tell me,

because I'm curious
since you just came upon this case

and this information and me,

I want you to show me
where it is indicated

that there was a current oil leak

that caused this blow-up of the engine.

No, no, no. Don't.
You have a witness, Mr. Zellmer.

You can't be both a witness
and a lawyer,

otherwise you're gonna have to run
up here and sit in the witness chair

and then run back and ask questions,
which would make it look very ridiculous.

[theme music playing]

[announcer] Atty. Joseph Zellmer

has accused auto technician
Richard Naef

of using the wrong parts
during an oil change,

causing Joseph's engine to fail.

I want you to show me
where it is indicated

that there was a current oil leak

that caused this blow-up of the engine.

Don't say anything. Say nothing.

Just point somewhere
in the documents

because that's
all that you can testify to.

You never saw this car. No, no, don't.
You have a witness, Mr. Zellmer.

You can't be both a witness
and a lawyer.

Otherwise,
you're gonna have to run up here

and sit in the witness chair
and then run back and ask questions,

which would make it look very ridiculous.

Show me in the documents
that you read. Where?

On those two line on the top
of the BMW of Roseville statement.

[Judge Judy] I'd like to see it, please.

So the line that you
are referring to is,

"Leaking oil filter cap,

non-BMW oil filter installed in vehicle.

Cap O-ring is hard

as if it was not changed
during one or more oil services."

- That's what you're relying on?
- That's what I'm relying on.

[Judge Judy] Of...wait just a sec.

I just wanna make sure
that that's what you're relying on.

- Yes, Your Honor.
- Okay.

Now I'm gonna ask you this question.

I want you to assume the following:

that on July 2nd, 2019,

there was visible leakage from oil

that remained for a month.

The car then went in for an oil change

and a change of the O-ring on July 30th.

The car was used from July 30th

to September 17th.

Correct.

And there was no
new evidence of an oil leak.

- Do you understand?
- Yes.

[Judge Judy] Then it was driven
for at least four hours.

Yes.

[Judge Judy]
And after being driven for four hours,

there was no evidence of an oil leak...

no light, no anything.

And then it was driven back.

Can you explain to me how,

with an oil filter
and an oil filter change, that a car,

and if it was a leaky situation,

there would be no evidence of that
for at least a month and a half?

[Aaron] Okay. The engine has a quantity
of seven quart of engine oil.

If you have a small amount of oil leak

and it dropped to about five
or six quart of oil,

the warning light will not come on,
only if it's going below that level.

[Judge Judy] No, I'm, I'm,
I'm asking you about when you lose oil,

and what you're suggesting is that
the oil goes below a certain rate.

Well, it doesn't go to God.

- The oil goes down.
- [Aaron] Yes.

[Judge Judy] Which is how
Mr. Zellmer initially saw

the fact that he had
an oil leak in his garage.

I see.

And what I'm asking you, sir, is,
if the oil is still leaking,

you would still see
some sort of residue in the garage.

- True.
- For a month and a half.

True. You should see some small
amount of residue on the floor.

- [Judge Judy] If...
- The rest of the oil,

if it's leaking,
it could dissipate during driving.

- So you won't...
- [Judge Judy] It could,

but it wasn't doing that kind of driving
for a month and a half.

True.

So, just as Mr. Zellmer
saw the oil leak

- before it was fixed by the defendant...
- Correct.

...should have seen
some oil leak if it was still leaking.

Depends how much he drive
because the oil leak will not leak

- when the engine is not running.
- Okay.

The answer is, it depends.
Now you can sit down.

[Aaron] Thank you.

Mr. Zellmer, you and I both know

that your complaint is with CarMax.

It's not with the defendant,
and if you chose

not to go through a mediation with them,
that's your problem.

They sent you to their mechanic.

Your complaint is not with him.

You paid $30,000 for a car

and $2,500 for an insurance policy.

In order to fix the car,
you followed their instructions

to go to a particular mechanic, you did.

You had the car for a month and a half.

You had no issues with the car
'cause you're a smart man,

and if you had seen oil leak
before you took a four-hour drive,

you would have gone back to his shop
and said, "I still see oil."

In addition to that, the defendant,

when you picked up the car,
gave you instructions,

he said, "It is recommended
that you have the engine steam cleaned

because I can't tell where the oil
got to parts that I can't see."

He said that right in the document
that he gave you

that you signed off on
when you picked it up July 30th.

You sued the wrong party, sir.
Go back... go back to it.

- We're done.
- [Kevin] Court is adjourned.

The car was at BMW Roseville,

which was also under
the BMW warranty

if he hadn't used aftermarket parts.

It was an actual aftermarket part

that is the same as BMW's part number.

They said they checked it out.

And they sent me
to the warranty provisions

that says we don't cover this.

He had called me up sometime
after the time we did the work

claiming that the whole housing
was leaking,

not that the oil filter was leaking.

And he didn't do the work
that he said he did.

I think she did a great job.

I did perform the work properly.

[Sarah] I think one of the main
takeaways from today

is make sure you have
proper standing in court,

make sure you're suing the right person,
the person most at fault.

He doesn't really seem like
the proper person to sue

for this amount of money.

Well, it's an interesting case.
If he had proven to my satisfaction,

without hearsay evidence,
that the work that he did

caused a larger problem,
he may have been successful.

But while he brought his expert,
his expert can only report

from what he read
and what he says he relied on

were the two lines that were in there.

And even if he relied on those two lines,

he says there's no indication
that there was any active oil leak.

And my other takeaway,

he said he didn't read the warranty.

Well, it would seem to me
that you should have read

before you signed it
and paid over $2,500.

You would read
what you're paying $2,500 for.

It's a very, very good lesson
for everybody

'cause even lawyers don't do it.

- Mm-hmm.
- Anyway, good case.

- Read the fine print.
- [Judge Judy] Yes.

[dramatic music plays]

[announcer]
Have you been cheated?



[theme music playing]