Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
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 § 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 § 2601) and Chapter 7 (commencing with § 2701) of Division 2 of the [California Uniform] Commercial Code, and, in any action brought under such provisions, § 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 §§ 2714 and 2715. Civil Code § 1794(b)(2).
Damages for breach of an express warranty on a new automobile is governed by Civil Code § 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 § 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.
Summary of Case On November 7, 2018, John Tseng filed this lemon lawsuit against 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
JOHN TSENG VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
18STCV04553
Aug 06, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
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).
RACHEL SANCHEZ VS FCA US LLC, ET AL.
20STCV05621
Sep 23, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
MIGUEL LOPEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
BC655722
Mar 28, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
MIGUEL LOPEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
BC655722
Nov 20, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
ALCALA VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
CVRI2103418
Jun 16, 2022
Riverside County, CA
.: 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.
RITA ROZEZADEA VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
23STCV04765
Oct 18, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
.: 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.
MARIA PONCE, ET AL. VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
22STCV28703
Oct 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
.: 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.
CLOUDBYTES, INC., ET AL. VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
22STCV25858
Jun 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
DAVID MARTINEZ, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
19STCV17391
Oct 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
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.
ANA P. QUINTANA VS NISSAN OF DOWNTOWN
23STCV19198
Oct 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
LUIS CASTILLO ET AL VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC
BC601978
Jul 20, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
FABIOLA VERA VS LUCAS AUTO CENTER, INC, ET AL.
21STCV06832
Oct 13, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
MIGUEL LOPEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
BC655722
Aug 30, 2018
Robert S. Draper or Gail Ruderman Feuer
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
WUENDI CASTELLANOS VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.
19CHCV00040
Jan 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
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.
MARTIN W. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
22STCV22626
Mar 21, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
KIMBERLY DAMBRA VS GENRAL MOTORS LLC
BC704509
Mar 06, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
PAUL KIM VS AIRSTREAM, INC.
23STCV11460
Oct 12, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
BERTILA DEL CARMEN AREVALO VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
22NWCV00625
Sep 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff has done so by demonstrating the documents sought relate to Kias s good faith compliance with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Specifically, some of the requested documents may show that Kia had knowledge of Plaintiffs alleged defects from complaints by other consumers. This is relevant to willfulness.
AARON KOONCE VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.
23VECV01887
Mar 27, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
DAEVIEON TOWNS VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
20STCV27223
Jul 01, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
REYAD SAMIR ALZIR VS FCA US LLC
23STCV08986
Feb 21, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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").
ANA TORRES, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
19STCV28458
Jan 15, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Johnson may be added as an additional Plaintiff in this action, and adequately advance causes of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
DAEVIEON TOWNS VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
20STCV27223
Jul 19, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
RODRIGUEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
CVRI2203731
Sep 28, 2023
Riverside County, CA
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.)
MACKENZIE KENNETH VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
22STCV11847
Oct 03, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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).
TANESHA JACKSON VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
19STCV15702
Feb 04, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
RAYMOND CHANG VS POLESTAR AUTOMOTIVE USA, INC., ET AL.
23VECV03953
Mar 05, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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).
SUREFIRE UNDERGROUND CONSULTING VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
CVSW2000395
Sep 30, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Civil Code §1793.2(b). On December 10, 2021, Plaintiffs acquired a 2022 Chrysler Pacifica.
JOSEPH MENASHE, ET AL. VS FCA US LLC
23VECV00711
Oct 05, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
DAVID KIM VS NAOS YACHTS INC ET AL
NC061439
Jan 25, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
VICTOR HERNANDEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS FCA US LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
21STCV29848
Aug 28, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
JACQUELINE RAMIREZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
BC655721
Jan 30, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
SARA KRISTEN MITTEER VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
23STCV06900
Dec 11, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
VIVIANNE JEAN COE VS SUBARU OF AMERICA INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
23TRCV00918
Jan 16, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
ARASH SHAKOURI VS TESLA MOTORS INC
BC614940
Jan 16, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
ANA TORRES, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
19STCV28458
Feb 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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").
JOSE FLORES VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
18STCV05798
Oct 02, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
ARELI HERNANDEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
19STCV08594
Feb 18, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
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.
TERRY KELLER VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
1417858
Apr 23, 2014
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
TALIN MESHEFEDJIAN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
22AHCV00073
Jan 11, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
ALDO PIZANO VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
22NWCV00480
Jun 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
DENNIS ALBERTO FERNANDEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
22CMCV00196
Feb 23, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
GRANT the motion for $26,522.50 attorney’s fees, pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(d) of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly). DECLINE to award a multiplier. The court finds the fees are permissible under Song-Beverly, the time expenditure was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, and the amount was reasonable. (Goglin v. BMW of North America, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 462, 470.) GRANT $3,996.53 costs.
CHEREDAR VS FCA US LLC
MCC1801494
Jan 12, 2021
Raquel A. Marquez
Riverside County, CA
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.
RIA CANLAS VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
BC693440
Jan 10, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
JOSE LEMUS VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
23CMCV00631
Oct 03, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
FRANK ROJAS VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC
BC692500
Sep 26, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
FRANK ROJAS VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC
BC692500
Sep 28, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion of Defendant Subaru of America, Inc. to Strike All Song-Beverly References from Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is DENIED. The California Supreme Court in Cummins, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 478 did not address the direct issue before this Court. Cummins held a claim under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act could not be maintained where the vehicle was purchased in another state.
PARVER VS SUBARU OF AMERICA INC
37-2016-00007454-CU-BC-CTL
Jun 01, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Any buyer of consumer goods who is damaged by a failure to comply with any obligation under this chapter or under an implied or express warranty or service contract may bring an action for the recovery of damages and other legal and equitable relief. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1794, subd. (a).)
ANDREW VALDIVIA, ET AL. VS THOR MOTOR COACH, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV44659
Jun 06, 2023
Los Angeles 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
STELLA ORTEGA VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
BC601686
Sep 13, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND: On February 21, 2023, Plaintiffs Orlando Baniaga and Ronie Soriano Rivera filed their Complaint against Defendants Kia America, Inc. and Kia Downtown Los Angeles on causes of action for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. On April 25, 2023, Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint. On May 3, 2023, Defendants filed their Amended Answer.
ORLANDO BANIAGA, ET AL. VS KIA AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV03664
Feb 16, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
.: 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.
RICHARD GREEN VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
BC644953
Aug 07, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
CEBREROS VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
CVPS2105950
Jul 13, 2022
Riverside County, CA
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.)
PATRICK BARRAGAN VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY
34-2016-00202409-CU-BC-GDS
Jan 30, 2017
Sacramento County, CA
Contract
Breach
Where a buyer establishes that the failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act was willful, the judgment may include, in addition to the amounts recovered under subdivision (a), a civil penalty which shall not exceed two times the amount of actual damages. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1794, Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., (1995), 35 Cal. App. 4th 112, as modified on denial of reh'g.)
- FERNANDEZ, CAROLINA VS GENERAL MOTORS INC
CV-23-000350
Nov 25, 2023
Stanislaus County, CA
Where a buyer establishes that the failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act was willful, the judgment may include, in addition to the amounts recovered under subdivision (a), a civil penalty which shall not exceed two times the amount of actual damages. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1794, Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., (1995), 35 Cal. App. 4th 112, as modified on denial of reh'g.)
- FERNANDEZ, CAROLINA VS GENERAL MOTORS INC
CV-23-000350
Nov 27, 2023
Stanislaus County, CA
Where a buyer establishes that the failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act was willful, the judgment may include, in addition to the amounts recovered under subdivision (a), a civil penalty which shall not exceed two times the amount of actual damages. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1794, Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., (1995), 35 Cal. App. 4th 112, as modified on denial of reh'g.)
- FERNANDEZ, CAROLINA VS GENERAL MOTORS INC
CV-23-000350
Nov 24, 2023
Stanislaus County, CA
Where a buyer establishes that the failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act was willful, the judgment may include, in addition to the amounts recovered under subdivision (a), a civil penalty which shall not exceed two times the amount of actual damages. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1794, Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., (1995), 35 Cal. App. 4th 112, as modified on denial of reh'g.)
- FERNANDEZ, CAROLINA VS GENERAL MOTORS INC
CV-23-000350
Nov 26, 2023
Stanislaus County, CA
Where a buyer establishes that the failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act was willful, the judgment may include, in addition to the amounts recovered under subdivision (a), a civil penalty which shall not exceed two times the amount of actual damages. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1794, Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., (1995), 35 Cal. App. 4th 112, as modified on denial of reh'g.)
- FERNANDEZ, CAROLINA VS GENERAL MOTORS INC
CV-23-000350
Nov 22, 2023
Stanislaus County, CA
Where a buyer establishes that the failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act was willful, the judgment may include, in addition to the amounts recovered under subdivision (a), a civil penalty which shall not exceed two times the amount of actual damages. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1794, Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., (1995), 35 Cal. App. 4th 112, as modified on denial of reh'g.)
- FERNANDEZ, CAROLINA VS GENERAL MOTORS INC
CV-23-000350
Nov 23, 2023
Stanislaus County, CA
JLRNA states it will produce the California Lemon Law Summary and the Standards of The California Lemon Law: Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Tanner Consumer Protection Act and responsive nonprivileged documents subject to a protective order. As such, this request is moot.
LINA MAY VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC
23STCV04013
Oct 30, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The Availability of Prejudgment Interest for Implied Warranty Claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act 1.
DARYL WHITE VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV00294
Feb 17, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Background Allegations Plaintiff Jessica Castillo sues Defendant FCA US LLC pursuant to three Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (lemon law) claimsbreach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and failure to repairon the grounds that the 2018 Dodge Durango (Subject Vehicle) purchased by Plaintiff on November 11, 2018 and manufactured by Defendant FCA US was delivered to Plaintiff with serious defects and nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty
JESSICA CASTILLO VS FCA US LLC
22STCV07214
Mar 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff asserted three causes of action: (1) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, against Defendant; (2) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of implied warranty, against Defendant; and (3) Negligent repair against the dealership. Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court granted on August 16, 2022.
JONATHAN ESPERON MENDOZA, ET AL. VS ALLEN GWYNN CHEVROLET, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV44400
Nov 01, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Papazian Responding Party: Defendant General Motors LLC BACKGROUND This is a lemon law action. Plaintiff Khachatour C. Papazian filed a complaint against General Motors LLC and Cada De Cadillac for 1. Breach of Express Warranty under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; 2. Breach of Implied Warranty under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; 3. Violation of Business and Professions Code §17200; and 4. Negligent Repair.
KHACHATOUR C. PAPAZIAN, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL.
23VECV03952
Feb 20, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Once this proposed amended answer is filed, Plaintiff will have no reason to seek evidence regarding Defendant’s willful failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and compelling the production of the documents sought would be unnecessary and wasteful.
GREISMAN V. FCA US, LLC, ET AL.
FCS051933
Aug 22, 2019
Solano County, CA
The Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED and plaintiff is awarded $23,024.00 in attorney’s fees under Civil Code § 1794(d) of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly). The court finds the fees are allowable under Song-Beverly, the time expenditure was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, and the amount was reasonable. (Goglin v. BMW of North America, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 462, 470.)
WU VS FCA US LLC
RIC1608155
Jul 10, 2018
Riverside County, CA
This case proceeds on count two in the FAC for breach of express warranty under Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
CRAWFORD VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC
37-2019-00034470-CU-BC-CTL
Feb 13, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
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).
FREDERICK GERLACH VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY
34-2017-00205853-CU-BC-GDS
Mar 14, 2017
Sacramento County, CA
Contract
Breach
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.
DOUGLAS BRADLEY SPELTS ET AL. V. FCA US LLC, ET AL.
15CV-0470
Mar 09, 2017
San Luis Obispo County, CA
DISCUSSION This Court has observed a dramatic increase in motions to compel further responses to document requests as well as motions to compel defendant car manufacturers to produce a person most qualified (PMQ) for deposition in actions for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. This is the 12 th discovery motion involving General Motors failure to respond to a document or produce a person most knowledgeable.
22CMCV00171
Sep 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Background This is a lemon law case involving a certified pre-owned 2018 Jaguar XJ (the vehicle) purchased by Plaintiff Jessica Lozano (Plaintiff) and distributed by Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges there are nonconformities in the vehicle that JLRNAs repair facilities were unable to repair within a reasonable number of attempts, and as such, JLRNA violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act).
JESSICA LOZANO VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
23NWCV00959
Jan 02, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Questions regarding YOUR policies, practices, or procedures in evaluating CADILLAC consumers request for vehicle repurchase under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act which were in effect at YOUR call center during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD; 12. Questions regarding YOUR policies and procedures to ensure CADILLAC DIVISION are in compliance with the requirements of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD; 13.
ROXANA ELI VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
23VECV00915
Mar 19, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
AGUSTIN JUAREZ, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
21STCV26506
Feb 03, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Case No. 22STCV03410 Motion to Compel Further Responses Plaintiffs filed this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs motion. Defendant General Motors, LLC shall produce the following documents to the extent it has not done so already: 1. Purchase and/or lease contract concerning the subject vehicle. 2.
OSCAR VERONICA SOTELO, ET AL. VS CAMINO REAL CHEVROLET, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV03410
Dec 13, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
General Motors, LLC Case No. 22STCV17740 Motion to Compel Further Responses Plaintiff Antonia Martinez (Plaintiff) filed this Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act case against General Motors, LLC (Defendant). Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, which Defendant opposes. The Court grants the motion in part and denies the motion in part.
ANTONIA MARTINEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
22STCV17740
Mar 29, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
All policies and/or procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date of purchase to the present. 9. Technical Service Bulletins and/or Recall Notices regarding the same defects claimed by plaintiff in vehicles of the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle which were sold within the State of California. 10.
JASWINDER SANDHU VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC
21STCV39389
Mar 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act “The [Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act “Act” (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.) is a remedial statute designed to protect consumers who have purchased products covered by an express warranty.” (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 798.)
SAMUEL NAYLOR VS. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
22CECG00167
Mar 29, 2023
Fresno County, CA
The complaint states causes of action against Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc. for (1) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, (2) breach of implied warranty—Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, (3) Violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, (4) breach of implied warranty—Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and (5) breach of express warranty. Plaintiff added moving defendant Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (TMCC) as DOE 1 on 7/19/12.
HAKIM MANI VS TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA INC
1385251
Nov 08, 2012
Denise deBellefeuille
Santa Barbara County, CA
On August 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Ford for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code §1790 et seq.). Plaintiffs seek reimbursement of the purchase price, plus consequential damages, civil penalties, and attorney’s fees.
DENNIS F. PAYNE, ET AL. V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY
15CV01893
Dec 07, 2015
Santa Barbara County, CA
On January 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint for reach of express warranty – Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of implied warranty - Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and violation of Civil Code section 1793.2. Defendant answered on March 2, 2021. RULING : Granted in Part (6, 14)/Denied in Part (numbers 8-12, 15 and 19).
ISMAEL ZAMORA VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
18CHCV00033
Apr 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Requests 56, 57, 58, 68, 69 and 73 seeks documents regarding Fords Lemon Law, warranty, and recall policies and procedures. These requests could provide information relevant as to whether Ford violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. See Jensen (1995) 35 CA4th 112, 136, as modified on denial of rehearing June 22, 1995; Kwan (1994) 23 CA4th 174, 186.
TAYLOR PEACOCK, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.
23CHCV00262
Jan 12, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Adams ("Plaintiffs") for an award of attorney's fees and costs and expenses, pursuant to Civil Code 1794(d) of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, as the prevailing party pursuant to the express terms of the Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer accepted on or about November 22, 2017, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs' evidentiary objections (ROA # 136) are OVERRULED.
ADAMS VS FCA US LLC
37-2016-00020383-CU-BC-CTL
Jun 11, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
Background Plaintiff Gary Barnett sues defendant Motorcars of Van Nuys for violating the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and related statutory and common law “lemon law” claims. On October 27, 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint. On July 20, 2017, plaintiff’s counsel Gregory T. Babbit of Rosener, Barry & Babbit, LLP filed this unopposed motion to be relieved as counsel. The Court considered the moving papers and rules as follows. Analysis The motion satisfies the procedural requirements.
GARY BARNETT VS MOTORCARS OF VAN NUYS
BC638925
Aug 17, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
“The Johnsons sued Ford and Decker for intentional and negligent misrepresentation and concealment, violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, §§ 1790–1795.7) (Lemon Law), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, §§ 1750–1784), the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200–17210), and the prohibition on false or misleading advertising (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500).
JUAN ARREGUIN, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
19STCV36127
Oct 14, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
Plaintiffs have not stated sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for fraud and punitive damages are not available under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The Motion is DENIED as to paragraphs 30-36, 39 and line 9 of p. 28. The allegations concerning vehicles with the same defective transmission may be relevant to show Honda’s actions were willful for the purpose of civil penalties analysis under the Song- Beverly Act.
PADILLA VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
CVSW2001403
Jul 26, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Category 16: Questions regarding YOUR policies and procedures to ensure you are in compliance with the requirements of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Category 17: Questions regarding your procedures to implement YOUR compliance with the requirements of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Category 18: Questions concerning how YOU calculate restitution offered to consumers pursuant to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
BRIAN GUADALUPE MAGALLANES, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
22STCV02983
Oct 19, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209, in which the court determined that the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act did not apply to previously owned vehicles. The parties then entered into a settlement agreement in May 2022 in the same dollar amount as offered in the CCP §998 offer. The settlement agreement included reasonable attorneys fees.
DENISE BAUTISTA VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
20BBCV00564
Feb 21, 2023
12/14/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
ARVIN PAIRAVI VS ALLEN GWYNN CHEVROLET, INC., ET AL.
23GDCV00086
Sep 29, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND This is a lemon law action. Plaintiff filed the Complaint against Defendant alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – express warranty, and (2) violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – implied warranty of merchantability. Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified (“PMQ”) and production of documents. Plaintiff also requests sanctions.
MARYANN IZZO- GONZALEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
20STCV18079
Jul 06, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
Defendant argues that the second and third causes of action are subject to demurrer for the following reasons: “First, neither of these claims are separately actionable claims under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Second, Plaintiff fails to allege the facts necessary to establish violations of either Section 1793.2(b) or 1793.29(a)(3). Third, Plaintiff fails to allege any damages resulted from these purported violations, making the claims defective.
ABRAHAM LAMAS RODRIGUEZ VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA
20NWCV00046
Nov 05, 2020
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
HOVNANIAN'S RIC1903673 FOUR SEASONS AT Motion to Strike Complaint BEAUMONT LLC Tentative Ruling: ANY REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SHALL BE HEARD AT 9AM The Motion to Strike is DENIED as to the purportedly irrelevant, false, or improper allegations; and GRANTED as to the references to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiffs do not allege stand-alone causes of action for violation of Song Beverly. There is no dispute that Plaintiffs’ houses, as a whole, are not considered to be consumer goods.
BUTLER VS K. HOVNANIAN'S FOUR SEASONS AT BEAUMONT LLC
RIC1903673
Oct 16, 2021
Riverside County, CA
HOVNANIAN'S RIC1903673 FOUR SEASONS AT Motion to Strike Complaint BEAUMONT LLC Tentative Ruling: ANY REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SHALL BE HEARD AT 9AM The Motion to Strike is DENIED as to the purportedly irrelevant, false, or improper allegations; and GRANTED as to the references to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiffs do not allege stand-alone causes of action for violation of Song Beverly. There is no dispute that Plaintiffs’ houses, as a whole, are not considered to be consumer goods.
BUTLER VS K. HOVNANIAN'S FOUR SEASONS AT BEAUMONT LLC
RIC1903673
Oct 17, 2021
Riverside County, CA
HOVNANIAN'S RIC1903673 FOUR SEASONS AT Motion to Strike Complaint BEAUMONT LLC Tentative Ruling: ANY REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SHALL BE HEARD AT 9AM The Motion to Strike is DENIED as to the purportedly irrelevant, false, or improper allegations; and GRANTED as to the references to the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiffs do not allege stand-alone causes of action for violation of Song Beverly. There is no dispute that Plaintiffs’ houses, as a whole, are not considered to be consumer goods.
BUTLER VS K. HOVNANIAN'S FOUR SEASONS AT BEAUMONT LLC
RIC1903673
Oct 18, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Plaintiff brings claims for breach of implied and express warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. In order to prevail on a claim for breach of an express warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, a relevant inquiry is whether Defendant took reasonable steps to repair Plaintiff’s vehicle. (Civ. Code, § 1793.2, subd. (c).)
LAWRENCE DRAKE VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
20STCV39592
Oct 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Consumer Warranty Act); violation of Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (10) negligent misrepresentation; and (11) fraud and concealment.
JAMES JONES, ET AL. VS KILOWATT SYSTEMS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
21STCV42944
Jun 13, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
As noted by Plaintiff, the interrogatories will help show whether Kia willfully failed to comply with its obligations under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Kia America, Inc. to Produce Further Responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED.
SOFIA VELAZQUEZ VS KIA AMERICA, INC.
23VECV00827
Jan 31, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
.: BC714936 Hearing Date: August 28, 2019 [TENTATIVE] order RE: Plaintiff’s MOTION for attorney fees BACKGROUND This is a lemon law case. On July 23, 2018, Plaintiff Francisco Gonzalez Rubio (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act arising from Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2014 Ford Escape. On April 26, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. (Kohen Decl. ¶ 3.)
FRANCISCO GONZALEZ RUBIO VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
BC714936
Aug 28, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
However, Plaintiff also requests that Defendant produce several records regarding Defendant’s policies, procedures, and training materials related to claim-handling, including claims brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The Court finds that these requests are facially overbroad.
EPIFANIO ROMAN VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
BC716532
Oct 29, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
Thus, category (2) is limited to 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.
ALFREDO DUARTE VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
22NWCV00389
Jun 27, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.