What is the lemon law?

Useful Resources for Lemon Law

Recent Rulings on Lemon Law

2076-2100 of 2194 results

VOLLMER VS. GENERAL MOTORS LLC

RFPS ABOUT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES RFP 9: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to YOUR rules, policies, or procedures since 2008 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 11: All DOCUMENTS which evidence, describe, refer, or relate to procedures used by YOU since 2008 for the handling of complaints by consumers regarding vehicles manufactured or distributed by YOU.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2016

STELLA ORTEGA VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

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

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2016

THOMAS JOSEPH ESTARELLA VS WEST COAST AMBULANCE CORPORATION

., under the California lemon law statute, when he had previously defended Ford Motor Co. in California lemon law cases. Khani’s attorney had worked for a law firm for three years that was Ford Motor Co.’s corporate counsel as to California lemon law cases, and had been involved in over 150 California lemon law cases on behalf of Ford.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GARCIA VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

This was a Song-Beverly/Lemon Law/breach of warranty case arising out of plaintiff's purchase, in October of 2009, of a new 2010 Lincoln MKT. He filed his complaint in November of 2014; Ford answered in early 2015. ROA 8. Plaintiff alleged headlamp and engine defects. At a due-course CMC, the court set the case for trial in December of 2015. ROA 16-21. As will be seen, this plan did not work out. Numerous discovery disputes arose.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2016

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RAUL MONTELONGO VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC

Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, Plaintiff sued Defendant for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act after Defendant failed to repair, repurchase, or replace a 2011 Bentley Arnage that had an obnoxious odor in the interior resulting from the rust inhibitor used on the subject car frames.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2016

JORGE BARRERA VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC ET AL

The Complaint asserts one cause of action for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly”). The record reflects that, prior to initiating this lawsuit, Plaintiff requested a repurchase of his allegedly defective vehicle. Defendant denied the repurchase request and instead offered $4,500 in cash. After this action was filed, Defendant offered a statutory repurchase of Plaintiff’s vehicle and the parties entered into a settlement agreement.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2016

GARY LANE ET AL VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL

Background This is a “lemon law” action arising from an alleged 2015 safety recall of the driver’s side airbag inflator, which defendants were unable to repair. On June 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a complaint for (1) breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act, (2) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Act, (3) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code section 1750, et seq.), and (4) unfair competition.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2016

REBECCA VILLAGOMEZ ET AL VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

To succeed on a claim brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“the Act”), the plaintiff bears the burden of proving several elements, including nonconformity of a vehicle that substantially impaired its use, value, or safety, presentation of a vehicle to a manufacturer or authorized representative for repair, and failure to repair the defect after a reasonable number of attempts. (Oregel v. Am. Isuzu Motors, Inc. (“Oregel”) (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2016

ROBERT ROBBINS VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

GM argues only in its Opposition that other vehicles are not within the proper scope of discovery in Lemon Law cases. (Opposition at p. 9.) Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Deposition is GRANTED as to Categories Nos. 4 and 5. Categories Nos. 6–9, 12, 30–33, and 36 generally seek communications between GM and other persons regarding the “Engine Defect” and “Steering Defect.” Category No. 39 seeks GM’s policies and procedures relating to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2016

AURORA VELASQUEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

This “lemon law” action was filed on February 16, 2016. On August 12, 2016, Plaintiff Aurora Vasquez filed this motion to compel a further response to RFP Nos. 19, 30, 31, 32, and 33, which Defendant opposes and both parties request sanctions. Requests for Judicial Notice The parties’ requests for judicial notice are DENIED as superfluous and irrelevant.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2016

SONYA MENDEZ VS AUTOMOBILE EXCHANGE ACCESS FINANCE INC

Plaintiff’s complaint alleged causes of action against both defendants for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Civ. Code §1790 et seq., and breach of express and implied warranty. When the case was called for trial, the parties entered into a stipulation to bifurcate Plaintiff’s claims.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2016

RILEY COTA ET AL VS FCA US LLC ET AL

That citation states, in its entirety: “Most recently in awarding expert fees to a prevailing consumer under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act the court in Jensen vs. BMW of North America, Cal. App. 3rd Dist. 1995 made it clear that the legislature wanted ‘costs and expenses’ including expert witness fees to be given to the consumer to cover such out-of-pocket expenses so that the rights conferred under the Act were available to everyone.” (Motion, p. 9:22-28.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2016

RILEY COTA ET AL VS FCA US LLC ET AL

That citation states, in its entirety: “Most recently in awarding expert fees to a prevailing consumer under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act the court in Jensen vs. BMW of North America, Cal. App. 3rd Dist. 1995 made it clear that the legislature wanted ‘costs and expenses’ including expert witness fees to be given to the consumer to cover such out-of-pocket expenses so that the rights conferred under the Act were available to everyone.” (Motion, p. 9:22-28.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2016

YOLANDA LYNUM VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC ET AL

To succeed on a claim brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“the Act”), the plaintiff bears the burden of proving several elements, including nonconformity of a vehicle that substantially impaired its use, value, or safety, presentation of a vehicle to a manufacturer or authorized representative for repair, and failure to repair the defect after a reasonable number of attempts. (Oregel v. Am. Isuzu Motors, Inc. (“Oregel”) (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2016

HOUSEN V. ULTIMATE AUTOLINE 2013 676322

Defendants claim fees are improper because this is not a Song Beverly case or a "Lemon Law" case but they give no supporting citation. No term of the Song-Beverly Act is cited and it is unclear what they mean by "Lemon Law." The matter was submitted to arbitration on the complaint. Defendants answered; they did not demur. Therefore, even if the award was incorrect, it was not in excess of the arbitrator's powers. And it was not "imperfect" as to form.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2016

KARLA BELTRAN ET AL VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC

Nissan argues that Beltran and Garcia are not entitled to a civil penalty in this case because Nissan complied with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act in good faith. (Opposition at pp. 4–5.) It is true that “courts refuse to impose civil penalties against a party who acted with a good faith and reasonable belief in the legality of his or her actions.” (Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 185.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2016

DEREK MOSTERO VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL

FACTUAL BACKGROUND This is a Lemon Law case. Plaintiff Derek Mostero (“Mostero”) purchased a new 2013 Ford Mustang (the “Mustang”) on December 10, 2012. (Complaint ¶¶ 6–8.) Mostero received written warranties with the Mustang. (Id. ¶ 9.) The Mustang was equipped with Takata PSDI-4 driver side airbag inflators. (Complaint ¶ 6.) On July 1, 2015, Mostero received a safety recall, calling for the replacement of the driver side air bag inflator. (Complaint ¶ 11.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2016

MARIO BARAJAS VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Ford denied the request and on April 19, 2016, plaintiff filed suit against Ford under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code §1790 et seq.) for (1) breach of implied warranty and (2) breach of express warranty. On May 25, 2016, plaintiff served on Ford (1) form interrogatories, (2) special interrogatories, (3) requests for production of documents, and (4) requests for admission. Ford served its responses to the discovery on July 15, 2016 and its verifications on August 17, 2016.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2016

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

STEPHEN VANWAUS VS FCA US LLC ET AL

Plaintiff brings this lemon law action against Defendant with respect to a 2015 Dodge Durango (“the Subject Vehicle”), alleging that despite being unable to repair defects in the Subject Vehicle, Defendant refused to promptly replace it or make restitution to Plaintiff. The Complaint specifically alleges a defect in the Subject Vehicle’s engine (“the Engine Defect”). LEGAL STANDARD Any party may obtain discovery by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2016

STEPHEN VANWAUS VS FCA US LLC ET AL

Plaintiff brings this lemon law action against Defendant with respect to a 2015 Dodge Durango (“the subject vehicle”), alleging that despite being unable to repair defects in the subject vehicle, Defendant refused to promptly replace it or make restitution to Plaintiff. The Complaint specifically alleges a defect in the subject vehicle’s engine (“”the Engine Defect”).

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2016

CHRIS LA BELLA VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

In this action, Plaintiff alleges a "lemon law" claim under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. (Civil Code § 1790 et seq.) With regard to new motor vehicles sold in California, the Song-Beverly Act requires that if the vehicle manufacturer or its representative is unable to repair a vehicle to conform to applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of attempt, the manufacturer must either replace the new motor vehicle or make restitution to the buyer in the form of refund. (See id.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2016

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GARY LANE ET AL VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL

Background This is a “lemon law” action arising from an alleged 2015 safety recall of the driver’s side airbag inflator, which defendants were unable to repair. On June 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a complaint for (1) breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act, (2) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Act, (3) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code section 1750, et seq.), and (4) unfair competition.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2016

BC67757

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ford Motor Company Plaintiff Michael Adams filed this “lemon law” complaint for various statutory violations on January 22, 2016. On July 28, 2016, Defendant Ford filed this unopposed motion for a protective order, seeking to make confidential documents exchanged in discovery.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2016

BC697757

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ford Motor Company No Opposition Filed: Plaintiff Michael Adams filed this “lemon law” complaint for various statutory violations on January 22, 2016. On July 28, 2016, Defendant Ford filed this unopposed motion for a protective order, seeking to make confidential documents exchanged in discovery.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2016

MICHAEL ADAMS VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Plaintiff Michael Adams filed this “lemon law” complaint for various statutory violations on January 22, 2016. On July 28, 2016, Defendant Ford filed this unopposed motion for a protective order, seeking to make confidential documents exchanged in discovery.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2016

  « first    1 ... 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.