Lemon Law (Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act) in California

Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Breach of Express Warranty; 5. Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Breach of Implied Warranty; 6. Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Civil Code §1793.2(B). On October 26, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer to the complaint with 20 days leave to amend. On November 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for 1. Fraud -- Concealment; 2. Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Breach of Express Warranty; 3.

Since the purchase of the Vehicle took place in Nevada, the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is not applicable. However, Plaintiffs First Cause of Action combines the Song-Beverly Act and the equivalent Nevada Lemon Law act. As Plaintiff points out in their Opposition, Defendant concedes that Plaintiff has pled a viable Nevada Lemon Law claim. (Opposition, p. 10; Motion, p. 8.)

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).

By way of Defendants' stipulation that the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and substantive law of California applies, and this Court's order that the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and substantive law of California applies, as the parties' Choice of Law in this action, Plaintiff is sufficiently protected and ensured of their Lemon Law rights in Elkhart County, Indiana.

Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Breach of Express Warranty; 5. Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Breach of Implied Warranty; 6. Song-Beverly Co0nsumer Warranty Act Civil Code §1793.2(B). On October 26, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer to the complaint with 20 days leave to amend. On November 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for 1. Fraud -- Concealment; 2. Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Breach of Express Warranty; 3.

Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Breach of Express Warranty; 5. Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Breach of Implied Warranty; 6. Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Civil Code §1793.2(B). On October 26, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer to the complaint with 20 days leave to amend.

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.

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.

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.

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.

.: 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.

BACKGROUND This is a lemon law action. On July 1, 2025, Plaintiff Arin Torossian filed a complaint against Defendant General Motors LLC for various violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act as well as Fraudulent Inducement Concealment cause of action. [Tentative] Ruling Defendant General Motors LLCs Motion to Strike is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

.: 24STCV06311 Hearing Date: September 4, 2024 [ TENTATIVE] order RE: plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents BACKGROUND This is a lemon law action. Plaintiff Andre johnson (Plaintiff) sued Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Defendant) for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Therefore, according to authorities cited above, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is inapposite to Plaintiffs vehicle. IV. CONCLUSION The Court grants the unopposed Motion, for reasons set forth above.

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.

The Court understands the argument of Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. that litigating Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act cases has redundancy to it given the sheer number of such cases. Indeed, nearly a third of this Court's docket are cases that arise the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the cases tend to look a lot alike.

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.)

This is a lemon law action regarding 2022 BMW X6. On September 10, 2024, Plaintiff Yeva Harutyunyan (Plaintiff) filed action against Defendants BMW of North America, LLC, Mckenna BMW, and Does 1 to 50. The Complaint alleges the following: 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.

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.

Plaintiffs make the motion on the grounds Defendant ́s objections are not Code-compliant, and that Defendant failed to provide adequate responses to Plaintiffs RFPs, which seek documents relevant to the asserted Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (SBA) causes of action.

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.

The Complaint asserts 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 Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Section 1793.2(d) and (4) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Section 1796.5.

Plaintiffs alleged that a balance exists as to the attorneys fees owed as a result of Yedalyans settlement of his underlying Lemon Law claim, which is different from a fees motion for violation of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiffs Complaint alleged three causes of action: 1) breach of contract, 2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and 3) declaratory relief.

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.

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.

On 12/12/2023, Plaintiffs Robin M. and Carlos Del Toro (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. On 4/23/2024, Plaintiffs moved to compel further responses from Defendants to their Requests for Production.

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 purchase to present. 5. Technical Service Bulletins and Recall Notices for vehicles purchased in California for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle. 6. All other requests for further production are DENIED.

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.

Plaintiff sues Mercedes, Foothill Ranch Imports, LLC and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, pursuant to a July 11, 2024 complaint (the Complaint) alleging causes of action for: (1) Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Section 1793.2(d); (2) Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Section 1793.2(b); (3) Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Section 1793.2(a)(3); (4) Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Section 1791.2; and (5) Violation of Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Section

· Category No. 16 : Grant Defendant shall provide PMQ regarding policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. · Category No. 17 : Grant Defendant shall provide PMQ regarding procedures to implement compliance with Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. · Category No. 18 : Grant Defendant shall produce PMQ regarding how restitution to consumers is calculated pursuant to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

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.

Background On January 15, 2025, Plaintiff Dawn Louise Vereuck (Vereuck) initiated this action by filing a complaint against Defendant FCA US, LLC (FCA), alleging three causes of action 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 section 1793.2, subdivision (b).

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.

According to Plaintiff, the requested documents are relevant to the issues related to Kias good faith compliance with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, including the breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, as well as Plaintiffs negligent repair claim. Moreover, Plaintiff is entitled to internal investigation, analyses and correspondence (i.e., emails) in cases brought under the Song-Beverly Act. (See Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334, 347.)

Tiffin and Mike Thompson RV indicate that they will stipulate to not object to the application of California law (related to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act) in a Franklin County, Alabama court.

Carvalho cites that, in other lemon law cases, FCA has taken the position that, in dispositive motions, that the holding in Rodriguez entirely precludes used car owners from bringing any claims under the Song-Beverly Act. (Carvalho Decl. ¶¶ 5, 13.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to dismiss their claims under the Song-Beverly Act and continue their claims under Magnuson-Moss and the CLRA. ( Id . at ¶¶ 12, 13.)

The complaint asserts three causes of action: (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. Legal Standard The attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination, as follows: ¶ 1.

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.

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 This is a lemon law case. On May 16, 2025, plaintiff Dreams to Reality Investment (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant General Motors LLC (Defendant) and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act breach of express warranty and violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act breach of implied warranty. On October 29, 2025, Defendant moved for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication.

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 Plaintiff is 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.

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.

This is a simple, individual lemon law case with limited issues and this Request also 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.

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.

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").

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

On April 1, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for (1) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act § 1793.2(d); (2) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act § 1793.2(b); (3) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Breach of Express Warranty; (4) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act - Breach of Implied Warranty; and (5) Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200. On April 1, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement of the entire case.

SROGs, set one, nos. 7 and 8 are as follows: INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS evidencing or setting out YOUR rules, policies, or procedures for complying with the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act since the year 2021. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS employed by YOU and YOUR agents or employees to effect compliance with the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act as of the year 2021.

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.

INTRODUCTION This is a lemon law action arising under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiff Samuel Duran (Plaintiff) filed this action against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (AHM) and Norm Reeves, Inc. on September 20, 2023, alleging that AHM failed to repair defects in Plaintiffs 2021 Honda Pilot within a reasonable number of attempts and refused to repurchase or replace the vehicle as required under the Act.

The complaint asserts two causes of action: (1) Breach of Express Warranty Under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and (2) Breach of Implied Warranty Under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Legal Standard Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.250 subdivision (a), a party must respond to requests for admission within 30 days of service. Failure to do so waives all objections including privilege or on the protection of work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 subd. (a).)

.: 25STCV16604 Moving Party: Defendant General Motors LLC Responding Party: Plaintiff Deann D Carson BACKGROUND This is a lemon law action. On June 9, 2025, Plaintiff Deann D Carson filed a complaint against General Motors LLC. On November 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint for various violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Fraudulent Inducement Concealment.

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) states two causes of action against defendant General Motors, LLC (“Defendant”): (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. Defendant now seeks summary judgment of the FAC. A trial court shall grant summary judgment where there are no triable issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

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.)

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).

BACKGROUND On March 21, 2024, FRANCISCO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Plaintiff) filed a Lemon Law Complaint against GENERAL MOTORS LLC (Defendant). On January 5, 2026, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC), alleging four Causes of Action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code §§ 1790-1795.8), along with claims for (5) Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C § 2301-2312) and (6) Violation of California Uniform Commercial Code.

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

DISCUSSION In his motion, Plaintiff states: This action alleges that Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC (Defendant or GM) violated Californias Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act or Lemon Law) by failing to repair Plaintiffs 2020 Silverado 1500 Vehicle and its various defectsincluding the POWETRAIN DEFECTwithin a reasonable number of attempts, and by failing to repurchase the vehicle despite its knowledge that Plaintiffs vehicle suffers from those defects. [¶] Accordingly, Plaintiff propounded

Questions regarding YOUR policies and procedures to ensure you are in compliance with the requirements of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; 17. Questions regarding your procedures to implement YOUR compliance with the requirements of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; 18. Questions concerning how YOU calculate restitution offered to consumers pursuant to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; 19.

BACKGROUND On July 16, 2025, Plaintiff Donna Peterson (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants General Motors LLC (Defendant) and Does 1 to 10 alleging five causes of action: (1) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act § 1793.2(d); (2) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act § 1793.2(b); (3) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act breach of express warranty; (4) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act breach of implied warranty; and (5) violation

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).

This is a Song‑Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“lemon law”) action. Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide further responses to requests for production, contending the responses are incomplete and consist largely of objections. Defendant opposes the motion and represents that it has engaged in meet‑and‑confer efforts and that additional discussions may further narrow or resolve the remaining disputes.

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.

BACKGROUND On September 8, 2023, FRANCISCO MENDOZA (Plaintiff) filed a Lemon Law Complaint against GENERAL MOTORS LLC (Defendant), alleging Causes of Action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code §§ 1790-1795.8). Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff purchased a used 2020 GMC SIERRA 1500 that Defendant manufactured, which had and developed serious defects.

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.)

This lemon law action alleges that Defendant General Motors, Inc. (Defendant) violated the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act) by failing to repair Plaintiff Victor A. Batress (Plaintiff) 2021 GMC Yukon XL vehicle (the Subject Vehicle). During the warranty period, the Subject Vehicle contained or developed numerous defects that Defendants authorized repair facility was unable to conform to warranty.

.: 24STCV34809 Hearing Date: July 2, 2025 [ TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO plaintiffs requests for production of documents, set one Background Plaintiffs David Cottrell commenced this lemon law action against Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. (Kia) on December 31, 2025. The Complaint asserts causes of action for violations of the Song-Beverly Act.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 September 8, 2023, FRANCISCO MENDOZA (Plaintiff) filed a Lemon Law Complaint against GENERAL MOTORS LLC (Defendant), alleging Causes of Action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code §§ 1790-1795.8). Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff purchased a new [sic] 2020 GMC SIERRA 1500 that Defendant manufactured, which had and developed serious defects.

Plaintiffs cite to the remedial purpose of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act to argue that there is a one-way, cost-shifting mechanism to allow only prevailing consumers to recover fees and costs. (See Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc . (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 184 [the Act is manifestly a remedial measure, intended for the protection of the consumer; it should be given a construction calculated to bring its benefits into action.].)

The action, however, is not dismissed at this time because the Court is granting Plaintiff limited leave to amend the First Amended Complaint, subject to the following conditions and limitations: Any First Amended Complaint shall allege Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act causes of action only as to the March 2020 lease transaction for the Subject Vehicle and the new-vehicle warranty issued by GM in connection with that lease.

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.

BACKGROUND This is a lemon law action. On July 1, 2025, Plaintiffs Juan Navarro and Cristina Torres filed a complaint against Defendant General Motors LLC for various violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act as well as Fraudulent Inducement Concealment. On March 30, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint. [TENTATIVE] RULING Defendant General Motors LLCs Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.

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.

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: 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").

INC. demur to Plaintiff PAVLO KIM’s cause of action for violation of the unfair competition law (the “UCL”) within his broader complaint also alleging violation of the express and implied warranty guarantees of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the “lemon law”) and negligent repair. Defendants simultaneously move to strike the cause of action for violation of the UCL. Notice of Tentative Ruling.

INC. demur to Plaintiff PAVLO KIM’s cause of action for violation of the unfair competition law (the “UCL”) within his broader complaint also alleging violation of the express and implied warranty guarantees of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the “lemon law”) and negligent repair. Defendants simultaneously move to strike the cause of action for violation of the UCL. Notice of Tentative Ruling.

INC. demur to Plaintiff PAVLO KIM’s cause of action for violation of the unfair competition law (the “UCL”) within his broader complaint also alleging violation of the express and implied warranty guarantees of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the “lemon law”) and negligent repair. Defendants simultaneously move to strike the cause of action for violation of the UCL. Notice of Tentative Ruling.

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.

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.

In opposition, Honda asserts that this is a statutory single vehicle case arising under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act involving a 2018 Honda Accord.

Case Number: 22STCV12174 Hearing Date: June 6, 2024 Dept: 57 This is a case under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Lawrence Razo's motion to compel Defendant American Honda Motor Company to provide further responses to over 30 requests for production of documents.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: All DOCUMENTS any CONSULTANT provided YOU from 2017 to present that are related in any way to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32 : All DOCUMENTS evidencing any policies, procedures, or guidelines provided by YOU to any agency regarding what constitutes a substantial NONCONFORMITY under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act from 2017 to present.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff brings this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code § 1790 et seq.) for a vehicle he purchased on 9/20/23, for which Defendant issued the manufacturers express warranty. (Compl. ¶¶ 89.)

In light of this conclusion, the Court finds it unnecessary to rule on the defense’s arguments with regard to sufficiency of Plaintiff’s other allegations supporting the UCL claim. b) Punitive damages are not available under the statutory causes of action alleged herein, i.e., the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the Unfair Competition Law. 

The operative Complaint, filed 2/18/2025, asserts 5 causes of action: (1) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act § 1793.2(d) (2) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act § 1793.2(b) (3) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – Breach of Express Warranty (4) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – Breach of Implied Warranty (5) Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 Plaintiffs now move for an award of $21,460 in attorney’s fees and $899.20 in costs

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.