What is the lemon law?

Useful Resources for Lemon Law

Rulings on Lemon Law

1-25 of 2206 results

JOHN TSENG VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.

., alleging the following causes of action related to Plaintiff’s January 2, 2015 purchase of a 2015 Audi Q5: C/A 1: Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act § 1793.2(d) C/A 2: Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act § 1793.2(b) C/A 3: Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act § 1793.2(a)(3) C/A 4: Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act § 1791.2 C/A 5: Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act § 1791.1 C/A 6: Violation of Magnuson-Moss Act Summary of Issues On May

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

RACHEL SANCHEZ VS FCA US LLC, ET AL.

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).

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

MIGUEL LOPEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2018

MIGUEL LOPEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2019

DAVID MARTINEZ, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KIMBERLY DAMBRA VS GENRAL MOTORS LLC

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2019

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MIGUEL LOPEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2018

  • Judge

    Robert S. Draper or Gail Ruderman Feuer

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LUIS CASTILLO ET AL VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2017

RIA CANLAS VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ARASH SHAKOURI VS TESLA MOTORS INC

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

TERRY KELLER VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 23, 2014

JACQUELINE RAMIREZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2018

PATRICK BARRAGAN VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VICTORIA SUZAN CANNON VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC

Plaintiff asserts that her discovery requests are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s Lemon Law claims because: · The Requests seek admissions that the vehicle: o Was not fixed with a reasonable number of attempts (see RFA No. 13) o Qualified for a repurchase under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (see RFA No. 16).

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2019

PATRICK BARRAGAN VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DOUGLAS SPELTS V. FCA US LLC

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2017

PATRICK BARRAGAN VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

FREDERICK GERLACH VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

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).

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RICHARD GREEN VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

.: 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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2017

ANA TORRES, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

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. On December 11, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant motions to compel the depositions of Kris Krueger and FCA US, LLC’s employee Melissa E. with production of documents.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

FREDERICK GERLACH VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

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).

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

AFIFA RAFIQ, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

FREDERICK GERLACH VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

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).

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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

    Sep 13, 2016

VICTORIA SUZAN CANNON VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC

Plaintiff asserts that her discovery requests are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s Lemon Law claims because: · The Requests seek admissions that the vehicle: o Was not fixed with a reasonable number of attempts (see RFA No. 13) o Qualified for a repurchase under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (see RFA No. 16).

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2019

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.