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.
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.
Nov 18, 2016
Orange County, CA
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
Nov 17, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
., 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.
Nov 17, 2016
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Nov 17, 2016
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
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.
Nov 15, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Nov 15, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Nov 15, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Nov 10, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Nov 09, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Nov 09, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Nov 08, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Nov 07, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Nov 07, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Nov 04, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Nov 04, 2016
Orange County, CA
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.)
Nov 03, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Nov 02, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Oct 28, 2016
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
Oct 28, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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”).
Oct 27, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Oct 27, 2016
Contract
Breach
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Oct 27, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Oct 26, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Oct 26, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Oct 26, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
« first previous 1 ... 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 next last »
Please wait a moment while we load this page.