Lemon Law (Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act) in California

On February 11, 2020, Plaintiff Rachel Sanchez commenced this lemon law action against Defendants FCA US LLC and Santa Monica Motor Group d/b/a Santa Monica Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram for (1) Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – breach of express warranty; (2) Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – breach of implied warranty; and (3) Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – Civil Code § 1793.2(b).

procedural history Lopez filed the Complaint on March 29, 2017, alleging six causes of action: Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Section 1793.2(d); Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Section 1793.2(b); Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Section 1793.2(a)(3); Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Section 1791.2; Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Section 1791.1 Violation of Magnuson -Moss Act Ford filed an Answer on May 11, 2017.

procedural history Tucker filed the Complaint on March 28, 2017, alleging six causes of action: Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Section 1793.2(d); Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Section 1793.2(b); Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Section 1793.2(a)(3); Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Section 1791.2; Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Section 1791.1 Violation of Magnuson -Moss Act Ford filed an Answer on May 17, 2017.

While the hourly rates and hours billed appear to be reasonable, Plaintiff has not established that a multiplier is warranted for this simple lemon law case that settled with little motion practice or extensive discovery. The billing rates reflect the contingency risks, which are reduced in cases involving fee-shifting provisions, such as the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

.: 23STCV04765 Hearing Date: October 18, 2023 [ TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO Plaintiffs request for production of documents BACKGROUND This is a lemon law action. Plaintiff rita rozedzadea (Plaintiff) sued Defendant AMERICAN MOTORS CO., INC. (Defendant) for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

.: 22STCV28703 Hearing Date: October 6, 2023 [ TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO Plaintiffs request for production of documents BACKGROUND This is a lemon law action. Plaintiffs Maria ponce and daniel saucedo ponce (Plaintiffs) sued Defendant AMERICAN MOTORS CO., INC. (Defendant) for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

.: 22STCV25858 Hearing Date: June 14, 2023 [ TENTATIVE] order RE: plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents BACKGROUND This is a lemon law action. Plaintiffs cloudbytes, inc., and DARSHAK RAMIT (Plaintiffs) sued Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Defendant) for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Category violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Category.

It further alleges plaintiff called a law office to discuss a possible Lemon Law case with them. ( Ibid. ) The lemon law is a common term for the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.) The Song-Beverly Act provides consumers with several types of causes of action for different violations, such as failure to repair a vehicle to conform with the applicable express warranties & within a reasonable time (Civ. Code, § 1793.2, subd.

In contrast, the Doppes Court distinguished Duale and found prejudgment interest awardable in a automobile lemon law case, stating: In Duale, the prevailing plaintiffs in a Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act case asserted the trial court erred in denying their application for prejudgment interest on the jury award. (Duale, at p. 728.)

Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Civil Code §1790 et seq. - Breach of Express Warranty 3. Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act - Failure to Promptly Repurchase; 4. Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act - Failure to Provide Buy-Here Pay-Here Warranty 5. Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Civil Code §1790 et seq.- Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability 6.

procedural history Lopez filed the Complaint on March 29, 2017, alleging six causes of action: Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Section 1793.2(d); Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Section 1793.2(b); Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Section 1793.2(a)(3); Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Section 1791.2; Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Section 1791.1 Violation of Magnuson -Moss Act Ford filed an Answer on May 11, 2017.

On January 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act -- Breach of Express Warranty, and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act -- Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability. Defendant answered the complaint on March 1, 2019. RULING : Moot/Off-Calendar. Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement on December 23, 2020. The motion is therefore moot and off-calendar. Plaintiff to give notice. Dept.

Hernandez and Gerardo Lazaro filed their Complaint against Defendant General Motors LLC on causes of action regarding the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. This is a Lemon Law case. On August 23, 2022, Defendant filed its Answer. On January 12, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents Set One and for Monetary Sanctions Pursuant to C.C.P.

This is a problem because the Airstream was purchased in California, and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act cannot be waived. (See Civ. Code, § 1790.1.) Recognizing this problem, Defendants have stipulated that the Ohio court shall utilize the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act to adjudicate those allegations. (Declaration of James R. Robertson, ¶ 5.) The Court grants the motion, conditioned on Defendantand the Ohio courtapplying the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act to this dispute.

Defendant’s PMK shall also be examined as to the following categories as modified: 8 – Defendant’s policies 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.

Plaintiffs Request No. 1 asked for All DOCUMENTS referencing, evidencing, and/or relating to YOUR policies, procedures, or guidelines for determining whether a vehicle is eligible for a vehicle repurchase under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act which added under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act to Request No. 23 of Set One. Thus, Request No. 1 is duplicative of Request No. 23 of Set One.

Johnson does not have standing to advance the causes of action alleged within the Complaint, which are brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Governing precedent and, indeed, the expressed language of the statutory provisions enumerated within the Song-Beverly Consumer Warrant Act provide that, in order to maintain a cause of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, a party must have been the buyer of the consumer good in dispute. ( Atkinson v.

Plaintiff has done so by demonstrating the documents sought relate to Kias s good faith compliance with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Specifically, some of the requested documents may show that Kia had knowledge of Plaintiffs alleged defects from complaints by other consumers. This is relevant to willfulness.

BACKGROUND: On April 24, 2023, Plaintiff Reyad Samir Alzir filed a Complaint against Defendant FCA US LLC on causes of action for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. On May 25, 2023, Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint. On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

Johnson may be added as an additional Plaintiff in this action, and adequately advance causes of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

BACKGROUND: Plaintiffs Ana Torres and Manuel Cortez commenced this action on November 20, 2018 against Defendant FCA US, LLC for (1) breach of warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act; and (2) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. This Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Lemon Law”) lawsuit stems from Plaintiffs’ lease of a new 2018 Jeep Wrangler, ("Subject Vehicle" or "Vehicle").

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act—Breach of Express Warranty; (2) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act—Breach of Implied Warranty; and (3) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act—Civil Code § 1793.2(b).

Plaintiff sued Defendant on April 7, 2022 for various violations of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Californias lemon law. Defendant noticed Plaintiffs deposition on May 8, 2023, for May 26, 2023. (Declaration of Arash Yaraghchian (Yar. Decl.), ¶ 3.) Plaintiff objected to the deposition notice on May 23. ( Id. , ¶ 3 and Ex. C.) Defendant repeatedly attempted to reschedule the deposition but received no response from Plaintiffs counsel. ( Id. , ¶ 4.)

This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information.

Violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act - Breach of Express Warranty; 2. Violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act - Breach of Implied Warranty; and 3. Negligent Repair. [Tentative] Ruling Plaintiff s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories from Defendant Polestar Automotive USA, Inc. is MOOT. Plaintiff s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions from Defendant Polestar Automotive USA, Inc. is MOOT.

Violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act This Cause of Action is based on the allegation that “Defendants are the warrantors of the express warranties set forth” in the purchase contract. (Paragraphs 48, 59) Yet the attached purchase contract says that all express warranties were extended “solely by the manufacturer of the goods and not by the seller.” (Exhibit A, Paragraph 9) Contradicted by Exhibit A, the Cause of Action for Violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act fails.

This is a lemon law action relating to a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado, which Plaintiff alleges has unrepairable transmission defects. The operative First Amended Complaint alleges breach of express and implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Jury trial was set for September 2, 2022. On August 30, 2022, Defendant filed an ex parte application for a trial continuance so that Defendant could file a dispositive motion based on Plaintiff’s lack of standing under Civil Code § 1793.22(e)(2).

Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Civil Code §1793.2(b). On December 10, 2021, Plaintiffs acquired a 2022 Chrysler Pacifica.

Cases under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act are not so complicated as to justify such high rates. Second, there was not substantial litigation in this case. Third, the handling of this case reflects inefficiencies. Plaintiff was represented by two separate law firms, three attorneys, and multiple paralegals. The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act intended to redress harm to consumers, not to create employment opportunities for attorneys.

Plaintiff Jacqueline Ramirez filed this auto warranty / lemon law action against Defendant Ford Motor Co., arising out of the purchase of a 2014 Ford Focus. The operative First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for (1)-(5) violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, (6) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act, (7) fraudulent inducement—concealment, (8) fraudulent inducement—intentional misrepresentation, and (9) fraudulent inducement—negligent misrepresentation.

BACKGROUND: On March 29, 2023, Plaintiff Sara Kristen Mitteer filed a Complaint against Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. on causes of action arising from the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. On May 4, 2023, Defendant filed its Answer. On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

GRANT the motion for $26,522.50 attorney’s fees, pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(d) of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly). DECLINE to award a multiplier. The court finds the fees are permissible under Song-Beverly, the time expenditure was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, and the amount was reasonable. (Goglin v. BMW of North America, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 462, 470.) GRANT $3,996.53 costs.

BACKGROUND: Plaintiffs Ana Torres and Manuel Cortez commenced this action on November 20, 2018 against Defendant FCA US, LLC for (1) breach of warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act; and (2) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. This Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Lemon Law”) lawsuit stems from Plaintiffs’ lease of a new 2018 Jeep Wrangler, ("Subject Vehicle" or "Vehicle"). The Vehicle was manufactured and warranted by Defendant FCA US, LLC.

BACKGROUND: Plaintiff Jose Flores commenced this action on November 20, 2018 against Defendant General Motors, LLC for (1) breach of warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act; and (2) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. This Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Lemon Law”) lawsuit stems from Plaintiff's lease of a new 2017 Chevrolet Camaro, VIN 1G1FF1R70H0135997, ("Subject Vehicle" or "Vehicle").

Background On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff Aldo Pizano filed a complaint against Defendant Ford Motor Company and Does 1 through 20, inclusive for (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; and (2) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. On March 24, 2023, Defendant filed this instant motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication. On May 30, 2023, Plaintiff opposed.

On June 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleging causes of action for: (1) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Breach of Express Warranty; (2) Violation of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Breach of Implied Warranty; (3) Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200; and (4) Negligent Repair. Subaru of America (SOA) and Subaru Pacific now file a Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication. B.

Plaintiff filed this complaint on February 10, 2022, alleging five causes of action for (1) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Breach of Express Warranty, (2) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Breach of Implied Warranty, (3) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Breach of Implied Warranty, (4) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Breach of Implied Warranty, and (5) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion of Defendant Subaru of America, Inc. to Strike All Song-Beverly References from Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is DENIED. The California Supreme Court in Cummins, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 478 did not address the direct issue before this Court. Cummins held a claim under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act could not be maintained where the vehicle was purchased in another state.

First, Plaintiff cites to Doppes II for the proposition that an award of prejudgment interest is generally permissible for “lemon law” cases alleging violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. (Motion, 3.) Plaintiff is correct. In Doppes II, the Court of Appeal found that, as a general principle, the trial court had jurisdiction to award Plaintiff prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3287 in a lemon law action. (Doppes II, 174 Cal.App.4th at 1010-1011.)

All DOCUMENTS that GENERAL MOTORS made available to the deponent pertaining to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (California’s “lemon law”). 11. All policy and procedure DOCUMENTS that GENERAL MOTORS made available to its employees pertaining to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. 12. All DOCUMENTS evidencing [Defendant’s] training materials for calculating a vehicle repurchase under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. 13.

On July 3, 2013, plaintiff filed suit against Ford for violation of the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Plaintiff seeks rescission of the purchase contract and restitution of all monies spent on the vehicle, plus attorney�s fees.

FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334, the Court of Appeals relied on internal emails to support an award of civil penalties under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. ( Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334, 347 [270 Cal.Rptr.3d 335, 346, 56 Cal.App.5th 334, 347].) Plaintiff also seeks documents that Defendant uses to evaluate Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act claims.

Defendant shall 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 January 1, 2015 to February 5, 2018. All other requests for further production are DENIED. Defendant shall provide supplemental responses in compliance with this order within 20 days.

Defendant shall 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 January 1, 2015 to February 5, 2018. All other requests for further production are DENIED. Defendant shall provide supplemental responses in compliance with this order within 20 days.

The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Any buyer of consumer goods who is damaged by a failure to comply with any obligation under this chapter or under an implied or express warranty or service contract may bring an action for the recovery of damages and other legal and equitable relief. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1794, subd. (a).)

As to Plaintiff’s request number 6, Defendant is ordered to produce 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. Sanctions Neither party requests sanctions. As such, no sanctions are awarded.

The vehicle suffered from widespread defects that Defendant failed to repair within a reasonable number of attempts in violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. II. ARGUMENTS Plaintiff requests an order to compel Defendants to produce its person most qualified (PMQ) to testify on the topics identified in Plaintiffs Notice of Deposition served on May 24, 2023.

BACKGROUND: On February 21, 2023, Plaintiffs Orlando Baniaga and Ronie Soriano Rivera filed their Complaint against Defendants Kia America, Inc. and Kia Downtown Los Angeles on causes of action for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. On April 25, 2023, Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint. On May 3, 2023, Defendants filed their Amended Answer.

.: BC644953 Hearing Date: August 7, 2017 [TENTATIVE] order RE: Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to defendant’s answer BACKGROUND This is a “lemon-law” action arising out of the purchase of a vehicle sold by Defendants. Plaintiff Richard Green (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”) for (1) violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (3) negligence; and (4) strict liability.

Where a buyer establishes that the failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act was willful, the judgment may include, in addition to the amounts recovered under subdivision (a), a civil penalty which shall not exceed two times the amount of actual damages. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1794, Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., (1995), 35 Cal. App. 4th 112, as modified on denial of reh'g.)

Where a buyer establishes that the failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act was willful, the judgment may include, in addition to the amounts recovered under subdivision (a), a civil penalty which shall not exceed two times the amount of actual damages. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1794, Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., (1995), 35 Cal. App. 4th 112, as modified on denial of reh'g.)

Where a buyer establishes that the failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act was willful, the judgment may include, in addition to the amounts recovered under subdivision (a), a civil penalty which shall not exceed two times the amount of actual damages. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1794, Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., (1995), 35 Cal. App. 4th 112, as modified on denial of reh'g.)

Where a buyer establishes that the failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act was willful, the judgment may include, in addition to the amounts recovered under subdivision (a), a civil penalty which shall not exceed two times the amount of actual damages. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1794, Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., (1995), 35 Cal. App. 4th 112, as modified on denial of reh'g.)

Where a buyer establishes that the failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act was willful, the judgment may include, in addition to the amounts recovered under subdivision (a), a civil penalty which shall not exceed two times the amount of actual damages. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1794, Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., (1995), 35 Cal. App. 4th 112, as modified on denial of reh'g.)

Where a buyer establishes that the failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act was willful, the judgment may include, in addition to the amounts recovered under subdivision (a), a civil penalty which shall not exceed two times the amount of actual damages. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1794, Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., (1995), 35 Cal. App. 4th 112, as modified on denial of reh'g.)

These include RFP #8 (Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual); RFP #53 (document retention policy from 2012 to the present); RFP #61 (documents used to evaluate consumers’ request for repurchases pursuant to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act); RFP #62 (rules, policies, or procedures since 2012 concerning the issuance of refunds to buyers or providing replacement vehicles to buyers in the State of California under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act); RFP #63 (procedures for the handling of complaints by

Once this proposed amended answer is filed, Plaintiff will have no reason to seek evidence regarding Defendant’s willful failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and compelling the production of the documents sought would be unnecessary and wasteful.

This is a lemon law action arising from Plaintiffs' purchase and/or use of a 2011 Ford Edge ("Subject Vehicle"). (Compl. ¶7.) Plaintiffs allege breaches of express and implied warranties under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Defendants argue that this matter is improperly venued in Sacramento County and thus must be transferred to Placer County, where venue is proper, pursuant to CCP 395.5 and 395(b). Specifically, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs are residents of Placer County. (Compl. ¶¶ 1-2.)

Plaintiff asserted three causes of action: (1) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, against Defendant; (2) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of implied warranty, against Defendant; and (3) Negligent repair against the dealership. Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court granted on August 16, 2022.

The Availability of Prejudgment Interest for Implied Warranty Claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act 1.

The Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED and plaintiff is awarded $23,024.00 in attorney’s fees under Civil Code § 1794(d) of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly). The court finds the fees are allowable under Song-Beverly, the time expenditure was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, and the amount was reasonable. (Goglin v. BMW of North America, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 462, 470.)

This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information.

Background Allegations Plaintiff Jessica Castillo sues Defendant FCA US LLC pursuant to three Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (lemon law) claimsbreach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and failure to repairon the grounds that the 2018 Dodge Durango (Subject Vehicle) purchased by Plaintiff on November 11, 2018 and manufactured by Defendant FCA US was delivered to Plaintiff with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty

JLRNA states it will produce the California Lemon Law Summary and the Standards of The California Lemon Law: Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Tanner Consumer Protection Act and responsive nonprivileged documents subject to a protective order. As such, this request is moot.

Papazian Responding Party: Defendant General Motors LLC BACKGROUND This is a lemon law action. Plaintiff Khachatour C. Papazian filed a complaint against General Motors LLC and Cada De Cadillac for 1. Breach of Express Warranty under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; 2. Breach of Implied Warranty under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; 3. Violation of Business and Professions Code §17200; and 4. Negligent Repair.

Case No. 22STCV03410 Motion to Compel Further Responses Plaintiffs filed this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs motion. Defendant General Motors, LLC shall produce the following documents to the extent it has not done so already: 1. Purchase and/or lease contract concerning the subject vehicle. 2.

General Motors, LLC Case No. 22STCV17740 Motion to Compel Further Responses Plaintiff Antonia Martinez (Plaintiff) filed this Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act case against General Motors, LLC (Defendant). Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, which Defendant opposes. The Court grants the motion in part and denies the motion in part.

All policies and/or procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date of purchase to the present. 9. Technical Service Bulletins and/or Recall Notices regarding the same defects claimed by plaintiff in vehicles of the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle which were sold within the State of California. 10.

Questions regarding YOUR policies, practices, or procedures in evaluating CADILLAC consumers request for vehicle repurchase under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act which were in effect at YOUR call center during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD; 12. Questions regarding YOUR policies and procedures to ensure CADILLAC DIVISION are in compliance with the requirements of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD; 13.

Plaintiffs bring this lemon law action against FCA US LLC (Defendant) on the grounds the Jeep was defective. The complaint includes one cause of action for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiffs now bring a motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable (PMK) on topics related to the lemon law claim. Plaintiffs contend that for the past six months they have tried to gain Defendant’s cooperation in scheduling the deposition.

This case proceeds on count two in the FAC for breach of express warranty under Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Plaintiffs have not stated sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for fraud and punitive damages are not available under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The Motion is DENIED as to paragraphs 30-36, 39 and line 9 of p. 28. The allegations concerning vehicles with the same defective transmission may be relevant to show Honda’s actions were willful for the purpose of civil penalties analysis under the Song- Beverly Act.

DISCUSSION This Court has observed a dramatic increase in motions to compel further responses to document requests as well as motions to compel defendant car manufacturers to produce a person most qualified (PMQ) for deposition in actions for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. This is the 12 th discovery motion involving General Motors failure to respond to a document or produce a person most knowledgeable.

Background This is a lemon law case involving a certified pre-owned 2018 Jaguar XJ (the vehicle) purchased by Plaintiff Jessica Lozano (Plaintiff) and distributed by Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges there are nonconformities in the vehicle that JLRNAs repair facilities were unable to repair within a reasonable number of attempts, and as such, JLRNA violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act).

This is a lemon law action arising from Plaintiffs' purchase and/or use of a 2011 Ford Edge ("Subject Vehicle"). (Compl. ¶6.) Plaintiffs allege breaches of express and implied warranties under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Ford argues that this matter is improperly venued in Sacramento County and thus must be transferred to Orange County, where venue is proper, pursuant to CCP 395(b).

The complaint states causes of action against Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc. for (1) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, (2) breach of implied warranty—Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, (3) Violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, (4) breach of implied warranty—Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and (5) breach of express warranty. Plaintiff added moving defendant Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (TMCC) as DOE 1 on 7/19/12.

This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this request violates Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567. Specifically, whether Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entirely unrelated and incommensurate to the scope and breadth of this Request. GM also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary and trade secret information.

The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act “The [Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act “Act” (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.) is a remedial statute designed to protect consumers who have purchased products covered by an express warranty.” (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 798.)

HOVNANIAN'S RIC1903673 FOUR SEASONS AT Motion to Strike Complaint BEAUMONT LLC Tentative Ruling: ANY REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SHALL BE HEARD AT 9AM The Motion to Strike is DENIED as to the purportedly irrelevant, false, or improper allegations; and GRANTED as to the references to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiffs do not allege stand-alone causes of action for violation of Song Beverly. There is no dispute that Plaintiffs’ houses, as a whole, are not considered to be consumer goods.

HOVNANIAN'S RIC1903673 FOUR SEASONS AT Motion to Strike Complaint BEAUMONT LLC Tentative Ruling: ANY REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SHALL BE HEARD AT 9AM The Motion to Strike is DENIED as to the purportedly irrelevant, false, or improper allegations; and GRANTED as to the references to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiffs do not allege stand-alone causes of action for violation of Song Beverly. There is no dispute that Plaintiffs’ houses, as a whole, are not considered to be consumer goods.

HOVNANIAN'S RIC1903673 FOUR SEASONS AT Motion to Strike Complaint BEAUMONT LLC Tentative Ruling: ANY REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SHALL BE HEARD AT 9AM The Motion to Strike is DENIED as to the purportedly irrelevant, false, or improper allegations; and GRANTED as to the references to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiffs do not allege stand-alone causes of action for violation of Song Beverly. There is no dispute that Plaintiffs’ houses, as a whole, are not considered to be consumer goods.

On August 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Ford for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code §1790 et seq.). Plaintiffs seek reimbursement of the purchase price, plus consequential damages, civil penalties, and attorney’s fees.

Adams ("Plaintiffs") for an award of attorney's fees and costs and expenses, pursuant to Civil Code 1794(d) of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, as the prevailing party pursuant to the express terms of the Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer accepted on or about November 22, 2017, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs' evidentiary objections (ROA # 136) are OVERRULED.

Background Plaintiff Gary Barnett sues defendant Motorcars of Van Nuys for violating the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and related statutory and common law “lemon law” claims. On October 27, 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint. On July 20, 2017, plaintiff’s counsel Gregory T. Babbit of Rosener, Barry & Babbit, LLP filed this unopposed motion to be relieved as counsel. The Court considered the moving papers and rules as follows. Analysis The motion satisfies the procedural requirements.

The motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED and plaintiff is awarded $60,847.50 in attorney’s fees under Civil Code § 1794(d) of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly), and a lodestar enhancement of 0.5% of $30,423.75, for a total fee award of $91,271.25. The court finds the fees are allowable under the Song-Beverly Act, the time expenditure was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, and the amount was reasonable. (Goglin v.

Consumer Warranty Act); violation of Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (10) negligent misrepresentation; and (11) fraud and concealment.

On January 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint for reach of express warranty – Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of implied warranty - Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and violation of Civil Code section 1793.2. Defendant answered on March 2, 2021. RULING : Granted in Part (6, 14)/Denied in Part (numbers 8-12, 15 and 19).

Requests 56, 57, 58, 68, 69 and 73 seeks documents regarding Fords Lemon Law, warranty, and recall policies and procedures. These requests could provide information relevant as to whether Ford violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. See Jensen (1995) 35 CA4th 112, 136, as modified on denial of rehearing June 22, 1995; Kwan (1994) 23 CA4th 174, 186.

“The Johnsons sued Ford and Decker for intentional and negligent misrepresentation and concealment, violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, §§ 1790–1795.7) (Lemon Law), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, §§ 1750–1784), the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200–17210), and the prohibition on false or misleading advertising (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500).

Category 16: Questions regarding YOUR policies and procedures to ensure you are in compliance with the requirements of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Category 17: Questions regarding your procedures to implement YOUR compliance with the requirements of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Category 18: Questions concerning how YOU calculate restitution offered to consumers pursuant to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209, in which the court determined that the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act did not apply to previously owned vehicles. The parties then entered into a settlement agreement in May 2022 in the same dollar amount as offered in the CCP §998 offer. The settlement agreement included reasonable attorneys fees.

Defendants 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. h.

BACKGROUND This is a lemon law action. Plaintiff filed the Complaint against Defendant alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – express warranty, and (2) violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – implied warranty of merchantability. Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified (“PMQ”) and production of documents. Plaintiff also requests sanctions.

Defendant argues that the second and third causes of action are subject to demurrer for the following reasons: “First, neither of these claims are separately actionable claims under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Second, Plaintiff fails to allege the facts necessary to establish violations of either Section 1793.2(b) or 1793.29(a)(3). Third, Plaintiff fails to allege any damages resulted from these purported violations, making the claims defective.

The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Act”) (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.) “is a remedial statute designed to protect consumers who have purchased products covered by an express warranty.” (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 798.)

Defendants demur to the 2nd COA (Violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act) for insufficient facts and uncertainty and seek to strike civil penalties based on a breach of implied warranty and emotional distress damages. The demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend. The motion to strike is MOOT as to the civil penalty issue and DENIED as to the emotional distress damages issue. (1) Demurrer: The 2nd COA is for a violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

The Court orders the parties to review the Courts courtroom procedures, which contains a sample list of discovery for Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act cases, and to meet-and-confer whether they will stipulate to production of those documents within sixty (60) days. 6. The Courts clerk shall provide notice.