What is the lemon law?

Useful Rulings on Lemon Law

Recent Rulings on Lemon Law

CARLOS HALILI VS FCA US, LLC

Documents that evidence any policy and/or procedure used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date of purchase to the present. Conclusion Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part. FCA must produce a PMK for deposition and answer questions regarding the deposition topics specified in the deposition notice. FCA must also produce the documents specified in this ruling at the deposition. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Documents that evidence any policy and/or procedure used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date of purchase to the present. 2. Document Production The Court finds Plaintiff’s document requests to be overly broad and unduly burdensome. As such, the Court issues the following discovery order: Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.

  • Hearing

BAHRAM JARIDIAN VS SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

On June 26, 2020 Plaintiff Bahram Jaridian commenced this lemon law action and on September 23, 2020 filed his first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Subaru of America, Inc. and Galpin Subaru for (1) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (D); (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (B); (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (A)(3); (4) breach of express written warranty; (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (6) fraud; and (7) negligent

  • Hearing

EDUARDO ANDRADE VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Defendant’s written statements of policy and/or procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase or replacement pursuant to “Lemon Law” claims, including ones brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date the Subject Vehicle was purchased or leased to the date the lawsuit was filed. viii. Technical Service Bulletins and Recall Notices for vehicles purchased or leased in California for the same year, make, and model of the Subject Vehicle. ix.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TODD HANDEL VS MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC

Plaintiff’s counsel Joseph Kaufman attests to Lemon Law Aid, Inc. handling the case on a contingency basis. (Kaufman Decl. ¶ 9.) Defendant’s assertion is thus not well taken. Defendant asserts that Ms. Sandhu’s rates should be reduced to $295/hour. This rate is based on Ms. Sandhu’s declaration that in prior years, Ms. Sandhu billed $295 to $300 per hour to defend manufacturers in non-contingent cases. (See Sandhu Decl. ¶ 10.)

  • Hearing

DAVID CHAVEZ VS FCA US, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

On June 3, 2019, Plaintiff David Chavez commenced this lemon law action against Defendant FCA US, LLC for (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act; and (2) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. On July 12, 2019, Defendant filed a notice of removal to federal court. On January 31, 2020, notice of remand from federal court was filed. On July 14, 2020, the Court approved the stipulation and protective order between the parties.

  • Hearing

DAVID CHAVEZ VS FCA US, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

On June 3, 2019, Plaintiff David Chavez commenced this lemon law action against Defendant FCA US, LLC for (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act; and (2) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. On July 12, 2019, Defendant filed a notice of removal to federal court. On January 31, 2020, notice of remand from federal court was filed. On July 14, 2020, the Court approved the stipulation and protective order between the parties.

  • Hearing

SALVADOR RUBIO VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

BACKGROUND On October 4, 2019, plaintiff Salvador R Rubio filed a complaint against Nissan North America, Inc. for violations of statutory obligations under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. LEGAL AUTHORITY 45-Day Rule: This motion must be served within 45 days after service of the response in question (extended if served by mail, overnight delivery, or fax; see CCP § 1013); otherwise, the demanding party waives the right to compel any further response to the CCP §2031.010 demand.

  • Hearing

MANUEL C. CORTES, IV VS BMW NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

Defendants’ notice explained that the court of appeal recently held that vehicle purchasers were equitably estopped from refusing to arbitrate their Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Claims against the vehicle manufacturers. (See 09/08/2020 Notice.). (Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486, 496–499, review filed (Sept. 23, 2020).)[1] In opposition, Plaintiff argues that BMW NA’s reliance on Boucher, supra, and Rowe is misplaced, and that Kramer is controlling authority.

  • Hearing

ANDRES ASCENCIO, ET AL. VS FCA US LLC, ET AL.

On June 5, 2019, Plaintiffs Andres Ascencio and Luis Saul Ascencio commenced this lemon law action against Defendants FCA US LLC and Van Nuys Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram for (1) violation of subdivision (d) of Civil Code section 1793.2; (2) violation of subdivision (b) of Civil Code section 1793.2; (3) violation of subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code section 1739.2; (4) breach of express written warranty; (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (6) negligent repair.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DIANA GAMMO VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC

The request asks Defendant to admit that the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act places upon it an affirmative duty to promptly repurchase or replace a defective vehicle. Defendant is correct that this does not explicitly fall within the scope of CCP § 2033.010. Indeed, it asks Defendant to admit to possessing a statutory duty, i.e., calls for a legal conclusion. However, this is a permissible request.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

JENNY RIVERA VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Background This is a lemon law action arising out of Plaintiff, Jenny Rivera’s (“Plaintiff”) purchase of a 2019 Nissan Versa (the “Vehicle”) on December 16, 2018 manufactured by Defendant, Nissan North America, Inc.

  • Hearing

GARCIA-AVALOS VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

The code requires a responding party to obtain the information to respond to discovery and here it is likely Ford could obtain the information from the companies repairing the vehicles or responding to lemon law complaints. The responding party is required to “make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information from other natural persons or organizations, except when the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (CCP§ 2030.220(c); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

ALICIA CAMACHO VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Request No. 34 seeks all documents that Defendant uses to evaluate consumers’ requests for repurchases pursuant to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Request No. 38 seeks all documents issued by Defendant concerning policies, procedures and/or instructions since 2012 that Defendant’s employees and agents should follow when evaluating a customer request for a refund of the price paid for a vehicle or replacement of a new motor vehicle manufactured or distributed by Defendant.

  • Hearing

ROSALIE SERRANO VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Due to the nature of Lemon Law litigation, and the relatively routine issues presented in the Complaint, the issues involved in this case were applicable to other consumers’ vehicles, thereby triggering economies of scale in terms of Plaintiff’s counsel’s efficiency in litigating this type of Lemon Law case. The Court notes that class action and coordinated/MDL issues created more complexity here than found in the usual Lemon Law case.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARIBEL AQUINO, ET AL. VS FCA US LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

There is no showing that this lemon law action required exceptional skill so as to warrant a multiplier. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel sets forth no evidence as to how litigating this matter precluded him from handling other matters. Costs and Expenses Plaintiffs seek to recover litigation costs and expenses in the amount of $1,559.65. (Motion Exh. 2.) Defendant objects to Plaintiffs seeking to recover their costs and expenses in the present motion for attorney’s fees.

  • Hearing

HELEN LIN HUANG, ET AL. VS TESLA, INC.

Consequently, Plaintiff filed the instant complaint asserting, among others, violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. (Id. at ¶¶ 95-111.) Thus, the requested discoveries are relevant. The Court further finds Tesla’s objections without merit. Number 34 seeks information on Tesla’s internal communication related to Tesla’s investigations of customer’s complaint to the sudden unintended acceleration of the 2018 Tesla Model X, submitted to the NHTSA.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ADRIANA G. GONZALEZ VS FCA US LLC

BACKGROUND This is an action arising from an alleged defective 2018 Dodge Charger (the “Subject Vehicle”), alleging causes of action against Defendants for: (1) violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act—Breach of Express Warranty; (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act—Breach of Implied Warranty; and (3) violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2(b). The parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) on June 25, 2020.

  • Hearing

ERIKA FLORES, ET AL. VS FELIX CHEVROLET, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, DBA FELIX CHEVROLET, ET AL.

Defendant shall provide testimony and produce all documents evidencing policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, for the period of November 4, 2016 to December 27, 2018. (See Categories Nos. 9, 10, 11, Requests Nos. 10, 12, 13, 15, 16 as limited by the ruling. To the extent the Categories or Requests seek testimony or documents that exceed the scope of the Court’s ruling, they are denied.) 3.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ESTHERN BAHK VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

Discussion This is a two cause of action breach of warranty lemon law case filed on May 31, 2018 against Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. (“Kia”) for claims arising from Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2016 Kia Optima. On a date the parties dispute, the parties did reach a settlement, entitling Plaintiff to recover attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses as awarded by the court (which the parties agreed would include a $5,200 JCCP coordination fees).

  • Hearing

LETICIA MUNOZ OLMOS, ET AL. VS JRDTSP LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DBA SCOTT ROBINSON CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM, ET AL.

.: 20STCV11358 Hearing Date: November 12, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: defendant FCA us llc’s DEMURRER to the complaint Procedural Background On March 19, 2020, Plaintiffs Leticia Munoz Olmos and Luis Munoz Olmos (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed this lemon law action against FCA US LLC (“Defendant”), and JRDTSP LLC dba Scott Robinson Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram (“Robinson”) alleging (1) breach of express warranty- violation of the Song-Beverly Act; (2) breach of implied warranty- violation of the Song Beverly

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARIA DEL CARMEN VALDOVINOS ROSALES, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Alquisiras Valdovinos (jointly “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant lemon law action. On July 10, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Kia Motors America, Inc.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AMANDA A. BINNS, ET AL. VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

However, “FCA … has failed to [*497] either promptly replace the new motor vehicle or promptly make restitution in accordance with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.” The Felisildas' claim against FCA directly relates to the condition of the vehicle that they allege to have violated warranties they received as a consequence of the sales contract.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

JOHN DIEP VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

On March 10, 2020, Plaintiff John Diep (Plaintiff) filed suit against BMW of North America, LLC (BMWNA) and SAI Long Beach B, INC dba Long Beach BMW, alleging: (1) violations of Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (2) Business and Professions Code section 17200; (3) Vehicle Code section 11713.18; (4) Vehicle Code section 11713; (5) Fraud; and (6) violations of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Defendants now move to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

  • Hearing

SONIA LAJAS VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Plaintiff contends that this Department’s Lemon Law Case Management Ordered, entered by the Court on December 3, 2019, requires HMA to produce the very same lemon law policy and procedure documents that HMA complains Kaufman has “insider” knowledge about.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 84     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.