Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Lemon Laws

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

In Rheinhart v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. D079940, 2023 WL 4195050, at *11–12 (Cal. Ct. App. June 27, 2023), the Court of Appeal refused to enforce a pre-litigation settlement of a Song-Beverly claim with an unrepresented party. Here, Rheinhart's right to remedies under the Act are substantive rights that the Legislature has declared unwaivable. Given the nature of those… Read More

In Frengel v. McLaren Auto., Inc., No. 3:22-cv-0664 W (RBB), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220983, at *7-9 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2022), Judge Whelan dismissed, with leave to amend, a Song-Beverly claim because the vehicle was not leased in California, despite Plaintiff's claims that it was delivered to them in California. The Court finds that the Lease Agreement can be… Read More

In Dhital v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. A162817, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 887, at *11-22 (Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2022), the California Court of Appeal found that the economic loss rule did not bar a fraudulent inducement claim so long as the claim was completely separate and apart from the Song-Beverly warranty claim. As noted, the trial court sustained… Read More

In Figueroa v. Us, No. B306275, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 883, at *4-9 (Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2022), the Court of Appeal held that a lemon law plaintiff who sold his lemon vehicle for a $3,000 profit got to keep the money. Subparagraph (B) establishes the amount of restitution FCA must pay. (§ 1793.2, subd. (d)(2)(B).) "[T]he manufacturer shall make… Read More

In Ramirez v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., No. CV 22-00734 MWF (MRWx), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121034 (C.D. Cal. July 8, 2022), Judge Fitzgerald remanded a lemon law case after reducing the Plaintiff’s claimed damages by unrecoverable negative equity. At the hearing, Plaintiff raised the issue of negative equity, which Defendant also addressed in the briefing, arguing that any… Read More

In Canesco v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:21-cv-00425-BEN-RBB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213644, at *32-33 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2021), Judge Benitez engaged in a thorough analysis of Song-Beverly's remedies in order to determine whether the amount in controversy required for federal jurisdiction was satisfied. The Court finds that this purchase price must be reduced by both the amount of… Read More

In Niedermeier v. Fca Us Llc, No. B293960, 2020 Cal. App. LEXIS 1035 (Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2020), the Court of Appeal reduced a plaintiff’s lemon law verdict by the value the Plaintiff received for trading in the vehicle. Defendant FCA US LLC, an automobile manufacturer,1 appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff Lisa Niedermeier. Plaintiff brought claims under… Read More

In Madadian v. Maserati N. Am., No. B293688, 2020 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3249, at *10-14 (May 26, 2020) , the Court of Appeal for the Second District held in an unpublished opinion that the costs a consumer incurred in exercising a lease-end purchase price were not recoverable as the "purchase price" under the Song-Beverly Act. 3. The vehicle purchase… Read More

In Gonzalez v. Ford Motor Co., No. LA CV 19-00652 PA (ASx), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185279 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2019), Judge Anderson held that a vehicle manufacturer need not reimburse the consumer for negative equity financed into the RISC. Finally, Plaintiff argues Ford's repurchase offer was "less than 50% the amounts he had paid for the vehicle." (P.… Read More

In Gomez v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 2018 WL 987398, at *6–7 (Mich.App., 2018), the Michigan Court of Appeals found that continued use of a vehicle after revocation of acceptance of non-conforming goods renders the revocation ineffective. Generally, if the buyer rejects the goods he is in possession of, he “is under a duty after rejection to hold them with reasonable… Read More

It seems a bit granular to go up to the Court of Appeal, but in Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 2017 WL 5664371, at *3 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2017), the Court of Appeal held in an unpublished decision that Song-Beverly restitution does not include registration renewal fees. Although the list is nonexhaustive, the examples give guidance as to what constitutes… Read More

In Clayton v. Ford Motor Company, 2017 WL 2859628 (4th Dist., Div. 2 2017) (unpublished), the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's cut of a consumer's attorney fee request in a Song-Beverly case, finding that the trial court properly set the consumer lawyers' rate at $275/hour and reduced the fee claim for work done on matters for which… Read More

In Goglin v. BMW of North America, LLC, 2016 WL 6135482, at *5–6 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2016), the Court of Appeal held that a so-called Benson response to a CLRA letter does not immunize an auto dealer/manufacturer from attorneys' fees incurred to prosecute a claim under the Song-Beverly Act. Both BMW North America and BMW San Diego contend Goglin is… Read More

In Daniel v. Ford Motor Co., 2015 WL 7740646, at *2-4 (9th Cir. 2015), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit stated that "The focus of this case is whether Ford Motor Company sold the plaintiffs a pig in the poke."  Cute. But, they felt the need to footnote what the quote actually meant: The English colloquialisms such as… Read More

In Peterson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2014 WL 4494872 (C.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Carter applied a narrow intepretation of the California Court of Appeal’s Mexia decision that had expanded the time during which a consumer can bring a breach of implied warranty claim. Mazda argues that Ms. Peterson's Song– Beverly claims fails because the allegation that… Read More

In Chulick–Perez v. Carmax Auto Superstores California, LLC, 2014 WL 2154479 (E.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Nunley granted a car dealer's motion to dismiss a Plaintiff's claim that a dealer's used-vehicle certification program violated Song-Beverly, the CLRA and the UCL.  The facts were as follows: On December 16, 2011, Plaintiff Michelle Chulick–Perez (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) bought a 2003 BMW X5 (hereinafter “the vehicle”) from… Read More

In Mega RV Corporation v. HWH Corporation, 2014 WL 1691371 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2014), here, the California Court of Appeal held that the Song Beverly Act does not apply to component part manufactures unless they gave an express warranty.    Civ. Code section 1792, part of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, provides that every retail sale of consumer goods is accompanied… Read More

In Hardison v. Kia Motors America, Inc., --- S.E.2d ----, 2013 WL 1110674 (N.C.App. 2013), the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order of attorneys’ fees in a lemon law case where the manufacturer had done the right thing once it learned of the lemon law claim.  Defendant also contends the trial court erred in awarding plaintiffs attorney's fees… Read More

In Mercer v. Tumbleson Automotive Group, 2013 IL App (3d) 120400-U, 2013 WL 827716 (Ill.App. 3 Dist. 2013), Judge O’Brien found that a Holder of an automobile RISC was not subject to the Holder Rule for the misconduct of a seller. The facts were as follows: In May 2009, plaintiff Terry Mercer executed a retail installment contract with Taylor &… Read More

In Kaiser v. BMW of North America, LLC, 2013 WL 100218 (N.D.Cal. 2013), a consumer complained that a vehicle manufacturer improperly sought to offset its lemon law liability by charging the consumer for unreasonable wear and tear on the vehicle.  Judge Ryu allowed the claim to proceed past the pleading stage.   The basic facts were as follows: Shortly thereafter, Kaiser received… Read More

1 2 3