Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act

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 LEXIS 3249, at *10-14 (May 26, 2020) , the Court of Appeal for the Second District held in an unpublished opinion that the costs a consumer incurred in exercising a lease-end purchase price were not recoverable as the "purchase price" under the Song-Beverly Act. 3.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

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in Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 2017 WL 5664371, at *3 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2017), the Court of Appeal held in an unpublished decision that Song-Beverly restitution does not include registration renewal fees.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In Clayton v. Ford Motor Company, 2017 WL 2859628 (4th Dist., Div. 2 2017) (unpublished), the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's cut of a consumer's attorney fee request in a Song-Beverly case, finding that the trial court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 an unpublished decision involving a purportedly defective yacht, the California Court of Appeal held in Andersen v. Pacific Asian Enterprises, Inc., 2012 WL 130473 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2012) that the Song-Beverly Act does not afford loss-of-use damages in the absence of actual expenses expended to cover.  The facts were as follows.  In April 2003, Andersen entered into a contract… Read More

In Orue v. Ford Motor Service Co., 2011 WL 6176190 (9th Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a service contract complied with Song-Beverly because it conferred benefits additional to the Manufacturer’s warranty:    The district court correctly concluded that the service contract sold by Ford did not violate the Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal… Read More

In Joyce v. Ford Motor Co., --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2011 WL 3891871 (2011), the California Court of Appeal found that a truck purchased for commercial purposes (notwithstanding identification on the RISC to the contrary) was protected by the express warranty provisions of the Song-Beverly Act because the vehicle weighed less than 10,000 pounds – even though the vehicle was ‘rated’… Read More

In Gertz v. Toyota Motor Corp., 2011 WL 3681647 (C.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Guttierrez granted an automobile manufacturer’s motion to dismiss an express warranty claim on the basis that what Plaintiff’s really were alleging was a product defect, which was mutually exclusive from the warranty claim.  The claim arose from allegations that Prius’ fuel tanks contract in cold weather such that… Read More

In Martinez v. Kia Motors America, Inc., --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2011 WL 711878 (2011), the California Court of Appeal rejected a vehicle manufacturer’s claim that the consumer must be in possession of the vehicle (i.e. not have had it repossessed) in order to prevail in a lemon law case.  The Court of Appeal explained:    Plaintiff and appellant Juanita Martinez… Read More

In DeSiqueira v. Toyota Motor Ins. Services, Inc., 2011 WL 362400 (2011), the California Court of Appeal held in an unpublished opinion that a manufacturer’s extended service contract did not violate the Song-Beverly Act merely because the Plaintiff “has a dismal opinion of the importance or value of the Contract's additional benefits”.  The Court of Appeal explained:   The Warranty… Read More

In Karapetian v. Kia Motors America, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2010 WL 4678691 (C.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Carney exercised his discretion to reduce Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in a lemon law case.  In Karapetian, the Plaintiff’s counsel rejected the defendant’s Rule 68 offer and did not do better in the ultimate settlement of the Action, even though Plaintiff prevailed in the case. … Read More

In Lukather v. General Motors, L.L.C. 2010 WL 377035 (2010), a vehicle manufacturer appealed following a bench trial and court award of damages, a civil penalty, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees and costs under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Act), Civil Code sections 1790 et seq., known as California's “lemon law.” The Court of Appeal rejected the manufacturer’s contentions that… Read More