What is the lemon law?

Useful Resources for Lemon Law

Recent Rulings on Lemon Law

26-50 of 2185 results

MALDONADO VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

This appears to be a usual Lemon Law case. The subject vehicle is identified as a 2015 Kia Soul with a 1.6-liter GDI engine. Yet for reasons not apparent in the complaint, plaintiff makes allegations regarding Kia Motors and Hyundai Motor, defects in 2011-2013 Hyundai Tucson vehicles and in 2012-2016 Kia Soul vehicles with either 2.0 or 1.6-liter GDI engines.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CARRILLO VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

However, there is a recent Lemon Law opinion, Santana v. FCA (9/29/20) 56 Cal.App.5th 334, that addressed a fraud by omission claim without any discussion about the Economic Loss Rule. There was nothing to suggest the fraud by omission claim was barred by the Economic Loss Rule. Defendant contends that Robinson requires damages independent of plaintiff's economic loss.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KATRINA GRENIER VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Background This is a lemon law action arising out of Plaintiff, Katrina Greiner (“Plaintiff”)’s purchase of a 2013 Nissan Sentra (the “Subject Vehicle”), manufactured by Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (“Defendant”).

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CARRILLO VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

However, there is a recent Lemon Law opinion, Santana v. FCA (9/29/20) 56 Cal.App.5th 334, that addressed a fraud by omission claim without any discussion about the Economic Loss Rule. There was nothing to suggest the fraud by omission claim was barred by the Economic Loss Rule. Defendant contends that Robinson requires damages independent of plaintiff's economic loss.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

EDGAR OMAR ACOSTA, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

This is a Lemon Law action whereby Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to repair the subject vehicle to conform to warranties after a reasonable number of attempts. Defendant moves for a protective order regarding the deposition of GM’s person most knowledgeable. TENTATIVE RULING Defendant’s motion for a protective order regarding the deposition of GM’s person most knowledgeable is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CEVALLOS VS. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

Pre-Judgment Interest Nothing in the SongBeverly Consumer Warranty Act bars recovery of prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3287. Civil Code section 1794 provides that a consumer who is damaged by any failure to comply with the SongBeverly Consumer Warranty Act may bring an action to recover damages, costs, expenses, reasonable attorney fees, and, in some cases, civil penalties. (Civ.Code, § 1794, subds. (a)-(e).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

MALDONADO VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

This appears to be a usual Lemon Law case. The subject vehicle is identified as a 2015 Kia Soul with a 1.6-liter GDI engine. Yet for reasons not apparent in the complaint, plaintiff makes allegations regarding Kia Motors and Hyundai Motor, defects in 2011-2013 Hyundai Tucson vehicles and in 2012-2016 Kia Soul vehicles with either 2.0 or 1.6-liter GDI engines.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ABRAHAM LAMAS RODRIGUEZ VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

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

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MALDONADO VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

This appears to be a usual Lemon Law case. The subject vehicle is identified as a 2015 Kia Soul with a 1.6-liter GDI engine. Yet for reasons not apparent in the complaint, plaintiff makes allegations regarding Kia Motors and Hyundai Motor, defects in 2011-2013 Hyundai Tucson vehicles and in 2012-2016 Kia Soul vehicles with either 2.0 or 1.6-liter GDI engines.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MALDONADO VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

This appears to be a usual Lemon Law case. The subject vehicle is identified as a 2015 Kia Soul with a 1.6-liter GDI engine. Yet for reasons not apparent in the complaint, plaintiff makes allegations regarding Kia Motors and Hyundai Motor, defects in 2011-2013 Hyundai Tucson vehicles and in 2012-2016 Kia Soul vehicles with either 2.0 or 1.6-liter GDI engines.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MARIA ZEPEDA VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s complaint arises from an allegedly defective 2013 Mini Cooper (the “Subject Vehicle”), and alleges a single cause of action for breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

RAUL VARGAS, JR. VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION

Causes of action for breach of express or implied warranties under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act are governed by the four-year statute of limitations set forth in section 2725 of California’s Uniform Commercial Code. (Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1305-06.) Section 2725 of California’s Uniform Commercial Code provides: An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JEFF ANTHONY VS IRON MOUNTAIN, INC., ET AL.

However, “[n]othing in the SongBeverly Consumer Warranty Act bars recovery of prejudgment interest. Civil Code section 1794 provides that a consumer who is damaged by any failure to comply with the SongBeverly Consumer Warranty Act may bring an action to recover damages, costs, expenses, reasonable attorney fees, and, in some cases, civil penalties.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 1004, 1010.) Striking the request for prejudgment interest would be premature. (Duale v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ANDRES BARAJAS VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

In this is a lemon law action arising out of Plaintiff Andres Barajas (“Plaintiff”) purchase of a 2013 Ford Explorer, Plaintiff alleges Song-Beverly claims against Defendants Ford Motor Company and Worthington Ford Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). On October 14, 2020, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the first cause of action, Breach of Express Warranty. Plaintiff requests that he be allowed to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”).

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LIMON-GONZALEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

Plaintiff cites to a number of cases in which prejudgment interest has been awarded in a Lemon Law action. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1010 [“Nothing in the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act bars recovery of prejudgment interest.”].) Whether Plaintiff is actually awarded prejudgment interest depends on the manner in which the action proceeds and on post-trial motions. For pleading purposes, prejudgment interest is properly alleged.

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2021

PATRICIA GUADARRAMA 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

    Jan 05, 2021

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JACQUELINE WICKER 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

    Jan 05, 2021

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BRITTANY E. GORMAN, ET AL. VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

Discussion On February 26, 2020 Plaintiffs Brittany Gorman and Andrew Gorman filed this lemon law action, naming defendants BMW North America, LLC in six causes of action, and a second defendant, Mini of Stevens Creek, for negligent repair only in the 7th cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2021

HORTENCIA MUNIZ 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

    Jan 05, 2021

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Analysis Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action: Breach of Implied Warranty The TAC alleges that Moving Defendants breached an implied warranty on three alternative theories: (1) under the “CCC”, (2) under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and (3) under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

SIMMONS V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

The Court overrules the Demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action. (1) The Demurrer is overruled as to the third cause of action for violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act under Civil Code §1793.2(A)(3).

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

DAVID BRIONES, ET AL. VS FCA US LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiffs David Briones and Irene Briones (collectively “Plaintiffs”) move for an order awarding them attorneys’ fees and costs against Defendants FCA US LLC (“FCA”) and San Fernando Motor Company dba Rydell Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram (“Dealer”) (collectively “Defendants”) in the total amount of $81,187.99, pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly”) and accepted C.C.P. §998 offer.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SIMMONS V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

The Court overrules the Demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action. (1) The Demurrer is overruled as to the third cause of action for violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act under Civil Code §1793.2(A)(3).

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

DAN MCLELLAN, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

Although the motion was filed in October, and thus the delay was longer than in Disney, this was because FCA sought in the interim to coordinate this case with several other lemon law actions, specifically seeking to try the cases in Orange County, where its principal office lies. (See 8/14/2020 Petition for Coordination.) FCA’s petition was only denied on December 1, 2020, after the present motion was filed.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

ARMEN SAVADIAN VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

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).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 88     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.