What is the lemon law?

Useful Resources for Lemon Law

Recent Rulings on Lemon Law

126-150 of 2204 results

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

    Nov 19, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 19, 2020

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

    Nov 18, 2020

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

    Nov 18, 2020

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

    Nov 18, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 18, 2020

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

    Nov 17, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 16, 2020

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

    Nov 13, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 13, 2020

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

    Nov 12, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 12, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 12, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 10, 2020

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

    Nov 09, 2020

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

    Nov 09, 2020

NAOMI GAITER VS ELLIS FAMILY STORES, LLC, ET AL.

This was a straight forward lemon law case. There is no evidence that Plaintiff’s counsel was precluded from taking other cases. A downward adjustment to the lodestar is not warranted either as Plaintiff’s counsel took this case on a contingency. D. Entitlement and Reasonableness of Costs Plaintiff requests a total of $998.20 in costs and expenses. Defendant does not dispute these costs. D. Conclusion Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NIA LOWE CASSELMAN VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

On June 29, 2002, Plaintiff Nia Lowe Casselman filed the instant lemon law action against Defendant Kia Motors America Inc. The case concerns Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2013 Kia Optima (the “vehicle”). Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle was sold with certain defects. The complaint states six causes of action for: 1) violation of Civ. Code § 1793.2(d); 2) violation of Civ. Code § 1793.2(b); 3) violation of Civ.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

RAUL DIAZ ET AL. VS FCA US LLC

On September 25, 2020, as the prevailing party pursuant to settlement, Plaintiffs Raul Diaz and Ileana Castillo-Diaz filed a motion for attorney fees in the total amount of $243,696.38 (inclusive of a multiplier of .5) pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code §§ 1790-1795.8) (“Song-Beverly”) and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code §§ 1750-1785) (“CLRA”), both of which allow for recovery of reasonable attorney fees by the prevailing party. (Civ. Code § 1794(d); Civ.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2020

GARCIA VS. GENERAL MOTORS

Facts This is a "lemon law" case involving a 2015 GMC Sierra 1500 truck manufactured by defendant GM. (Compl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff alleges she purchased the vehicle new on January 23, 2015 for her personal, family or household purposes. (Compl. ¶ 5.) She alleges the vehicle was manufactured and distributed by GM for sale in California, and implicitly that she purchased the vehicle from Lehmer's Concord Buick GMC. (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 6, 51.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

BERENICE RIVAS VS FCA US LLC

No. 50: all training manuals and/or other documents relating to the training given to defendant’s employees, agents, and representatives in connection with handling consumer lemon law repurchase requests. See defendant’s response to No. 35. Defendant’s response is proper. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. It appears that defendant has properly responded that it has produced all responsive documents, or properly objected to producing emails, or does not have responsive documents.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

WILLIE BROWN VS MERCEDES BENZ USA LLC

.: BC656747 Hearing Date: November 6, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION For Attorney fees BACKGROUND This is a lemon law case. Plaintiff Willie Brown (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for violation of statutory obligations against Defendants Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Defendant”).

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

ARMEN G KOJIKIAN ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

BACKGROUND On January 8, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint asserting claims for (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty, (3) breach of warranty (Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act), Civil Code § 1790 et seq. (“Song-Beverly”’), (4) breach of warranty (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act), 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. (“Mag-Moss”), (5) violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code § 1750 et seq.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

LAUREN HEAJIN KIM VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant action for breach of warranty claims under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly”) against Defendants in connection with her June 27, 2017 lease of a 2017 BMW X5 VIN: 5UXKTQC36IIQV97560 (“subject vehicle”). (Complaint ¶¶8-9.) Defendant filed its answer on March 6, 2020, and Dealer filed its answer on March 10, 2020. Defendants filed the instant motion on October 15, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

MARTIN FLORES VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC.

BACKGROUND On December 11, 2019, plaintiff Martin Flores 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

    Nov 06, 2020

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 89     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.