Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act “lemon law” cases are causes of actions whereby:
A buyer of consumer goods that are damaged by breach of the express or implied warranties may bring an action to recover damages pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act.
Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 121.
The Act is designed to give consumers broader protection for breach of warranty than buyers would have under the common law or the California Uniform Commercial Code. Jiagbogu v. Mercedes–Benz USA (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1235, 1241. The Lemon Law is a “strongly pro-consumer” law aimed at protecting, among others, new car buyers. Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 985, 990.
The Song-Beverly Act is a remedial statute designed to protect consumers who have purchased products covered by an express warranty. Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 121.
It requires a manufacturer to replace “consumer goods” or reimburse the buyer if the manufacturer or its representative is unable to repair the consumer good after a reasonable number of attempts. Civ. Code, § 1793.2(d)(1).
A plaintiff pursuing an action under the Act has the burden to prove that:
Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 799 citing Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.
“The reasonableness of the number of repair attempts is a question of fact to be determined in light of the circumstances, but at a minimum there must be more than one opportunity to fix the nonconformity.” Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of Cal., Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 799. For new motor vehicles there is a presumption of failure to conform to warranty within a reasonable number of attempts after four repairs of the same nonconformity and notification to the manufacturer of the need for repair. Civ. Code, § 1793.22(b)(2).
Note, the plain language of this statute imposes a duty to brand the vehicle as a “lemon law buyback” only on the manufacturer.
The reasonableness of the number of repair attempts is a question of fact to be determined in light of the circumstances, but at a minimum there must be more than one opportunity to fix the nonconformity. Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 799.
For new motor vehicles there is a presumption of failure to conform to warranty within a reasonable number of attempts after four repairs of the same nonconformity and notification to the manufacturer of the need for repair. Civil Code § 1793.22(b)(2).
The replacement/restitution remedy is available only for breach of an express warranty. Gavaldon v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1246, 1262.
Damages for breach of an implied warranty is governed by Civil Code section 1791.1(d) which provides, “Any buyer of consumer goods injured by a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability... has the remedies provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 2601) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2701) of Division 2 of the [California Uniform] Commercial Code, and, in any action brought under such provisions, Section 1794 of this chapter shall apply.” When the buyer accepts the goods, damages for breach of the implied warranty include damages available under California Uniform Commercial Code sections 2714 and 2715. Civil Code § 1794(b)(2).
Damages for breach of an express warranty on a new automobile is governed by Civil Code section 1793.2. If the manufacturer is unable to service or repair a vehicle to conform to an express warranty after a reasonable number of attempts, the buyer may seek replacement or restitution. Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2).
Restitution shall be “in an amount equal to the actual price paid or payable by the buyer....” Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(B).
In the automobile case the “actual price paid or payable” may be reduced by any amount attributable to the buyer’s use prior to the first time the buyer brought the car in for repair. Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(C) (formula for calculating the “amount directly attributable to use by the buyer”).
In addition, the buyer is entitled to incidental or consequential damages (including attorney’s fees) as defined in California Uniform Commercial Code section 2715. Civil Code § 1794; Kwan v. Mercedes–Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 187-188.
In a lemon law action, costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, may be recovered by a prevailing buyer under the Song-Beverly Act. See Civ. Code, § 1794(d); Wohlgemuth v. Caterpiller, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1262.
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Contract
Contract - Other
San Diego County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Riverside County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
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).
Los Angeles County, CA
.: 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
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
