The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California’s lemon law, provides enhanced remedies for consumers of defective vehicles that manufacturers cannot fix and refuse to buy back. GMSR is one of the premier law firms representing consumers in this highly specialized area of law and has secured novel rulings in state and federal appellate courts, including the California Supreme Court. For this reason, attorneys representing consumers in lemon law cases often team with GMSR to take on car manufacturers that avoid their buy-back obligations.
Courts have split over whether a plaintiff can assert a tort claim for fraudulent concealment during the performance of a contract, or whether such claims are barred by the common-law economic loss rule. The California Supreme Court accepted the Ninth Circuit’s request to resolve the
GMSR’s clients discovered that their used vehicle was defective, but the manufacturer refused to repair or replace it. They sued the manufacturer under California’s lemon law, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, which requires manufacturers to either replace defective cars or offer the consumer a refund.
Court of Appeal’s published opinion holds that California lemon law protects used car buyers with active new-car warranties
GMSR client Lisa Niedermeier gave the manufacturer of her defective Jeep Wrangler more than a dozen chances to fix the vehicle before asking the manufacturer to buy it back under California’s Lemon Law, the Song-Beverly Act. The manufacturer refused her buy-back request, willfully violating the
California Supreme Court: GMSR’s consumer client is entitled to full statutory restitution under California’s lemon law—without offset
On December 5, GMSR’s co-managing partner, Cindy Tobisman, argued on behalf of car consumer, Lisa Niedermeier, at the California Supreme Court. GMSR’s client sued an auto manufacturer under California’s Lemon Law (the Song-Beverly Act) for failing to repair or replace her defective vehicle despite sixteen
GMSR’s clients leased a vehicle that proved to be a lemon and sued the manufacturer under California’s lemon law, the Song-Beverly Act. The manufacturer sent the clients a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 settlement offer, and they accepted. Under the settlement agreement, the manufacturer
Court of Appeal reverses order denying settlement enforcement and interprets settlement under CCP 998 in favor of GMSR’s clients
#23-92 Williams v. FCA US LLC, S279051. (C091902; 88 Cal.App.5th 765; Butte County Superior Court; 17CV02617.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC, S266034
The Song-Beverly Act requires car manufacturers to promptly buy back defective cars without the consumer having to sue. Consumer advocates have long argued that manufacturers may not offset damages for amounts that plaintiffs are credited when they sell or trade in a defective car under
Whether on appeal, assisting trial counsel, or advising government officials contemplating legislative action, GMSR provides unique insight into the complex laws that impact public entities.
Where coverage may exist, GMSR represents insureds on appeal effectively and efficiently. Where it does not, the firm protects insurers’ right to deny claims.
GMSR offers corporate clients objective assessments on appeal, based on a deep understanding of the limitations and opportunities of appellate review.
The firm’s lawyers are team players, collaborating with trial counsel at any level from legal strategy to writing or editing trial court motions and appellate briefs.
GMSR vigorously advocates the rights of individual plaintiffs and defendants, in both state and federal appellate courts.
As part of GMSR’s long-standing commitment to social justice and equality, GMSR provides pro bono appellate services to individuals and to community organizations on issues of concern.
We welcome your inquiry. However, sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship. For that reason, you should not send us any kind of confidential information. Until we have agreed to represent you, we cannot be obligated to keep it confidential.