Fast, Easy, & Stress-Free

Recent Settlements

Lemon Law, Los Angeles, 2016 Cadillac Escalade

Case Description

This Los Angeles based Lemon Law client purchased a new 2016 Cadillac Escalade in May of 2017.  Within seven months of purchase, this client discovered that the vehicle's transmission was malfunctioning and that a foul odor was coming from the Air Conditioning System.

The vehicle was taken in to the dealership for inspection and after an examination, the client was informed that the transmission issue was resolved by performing a software update on the Transmission Control Module (TCM) and that the odor problem was probably due to a rodent infestation.

Despite the attempted repairs, the vehicle still exhibited the same transmission issues as before and was taken back in on two other occasions .  Following the last failed attempt in February of 2019, this Los Angeles based lemon law client contacted 888lemon28 and forwarded all of his service records for review.  888lemon28 took on his case against General Motors without delay. 

888lemon28 discovered that there were several TSBs that General Motors had published in regards to the transmission issues that were present in this case and immediately filed a lawsuit against General Motors seeking a repurchase of the Cadillac Escalade.

Within ten months of being retained, the attorneys at 888lemon28 were able to notify the client that General Motors had agreed to repurchase their lemon Cadillac Escalade, refund all monies (less a usage fee) and pay all of the attorney fees and costs.

Used Car Lemon Law Oxnard CA, Jeep Commander

Case Description

Our Client purchased a used 2006 Jeep Commander from CarMax Auto Superstores in Oxnard, CA with 83,316 miles for $39,447.42. Approximately 2 months after purchase, the Jeep Commander e began to exhibit an airbag sensor system issue, causing the airbag warning light to activate. After multiple attempted repairs, our Client had the Jeep Commander inspected by CarMax and found that in addition to the undisclosed airbag sensor system issue there was also a transmission leak. While our Client continued to take the Jeep Commander in for multiple repairs, the Vehicle began overheating and the ABS brake warning light had activated. Soon after, our Client discovered that the Jeep Commander had developed a severe engine problem with a cracked head gasket, resulting in coolant entering the engine oil. The Vehicle was consequently inoperable and our Client decided to seek legal help.

After retaining our attorneys at 888Lemon28, our firm obtained a judgment against CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. and Santander Consumer USA for a repurchase of the Jeep Commander

New Car Lemon Law Santa Monica CA, Mercedes-Benz S550

Case Description

Our Client purchased a new 2007 Mercedes-Benz S550 from W.I. Simonson in Santa Monica and only drove the Vehicle less than 8,000 miles per year. Soon after purchase, the S550 began exhibiting defects related to the transmission at only 6,626 miles. The S550’s defects included sudden loss of power while driving, gear shift issues, loud scraping and clicking sounds emanating from the transmission. Prior to the sixth visit to attempt transmission repairs, the S550’s transmission gears exploded at only 42,356 miles, leaving metal debris throughout the transmission casing. Other issues included braking, engine component, and suspension problems as well. Our Client realized the defects could potentially put her safety at risk and decided to contact an attorney.

After retaining our attorneys at Lemon28, our firm was able to obtain a judgment against W.I. Simonson and Mercedes-Benz USA in the sum of $107,000 on behalf of our Client.

New Car Lemon Law Redlands CA, Toyota Tacoma 4x4

Case Description

Our Client leased a 2016 Toyota Tacoma 4x4 bearing VIN 5TFSZ5AN9GX007455 from Toyota of Redlands that was advertised as “new” on December 22, 2015, with about 300 miles. Within the first 2,304 miles on the odometer, the Vehicle began experiencing numerous problems, including front drive shaft, anti-lock brake system failure, and engine failure. The Vehicle was out of service for more than 30 days during its first 18,000 miles and under 18 months of use due to repairs covered by the warranty. Our Client attempted to negotiate a repurchase from the manufacturer on his own, but after receiving a letter of rejection for his request, our Client decided to take legal action.

After retaining our attorneys at Lemon28, Toyota of Redlands and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. repurchased the defective Vehicle and our firm recovered $40,000.00 on behalf of our Client.

Used Car Lemon Law Encino CA, Mercedes-Benz, SL65

Case Description

Our Client leased a pre-owned 2013 Mercedes-Benz SL65 from Mercedes-Benz of Encino bearing VIN WDDJK7KA8DF016615. The Mercedes-Benz SL65 was leased with a warranty that covered 4 years or 50,000 miles, whichever came first, and all warranty repairs and adjustments, including parts and labor, were to be made at no charge to our Client. Within the first month after the lease, our Client began experiencing defective conditions with the Mercedes-Benz SL65, including electrical problems and a misfire from multiple cylinders. Our Client took the Mercedes-Benz SL65 to an authorized Mercedes-Benz dealer for repair on numerous occasions. During the first 48 months and 50,000 miles following the lease, the Vehicle was in for repairs at least 7 times for a total of more than 39 days. Despite our Client’s repeated efforts to allow Mercedes-Benz to repair the Vehicle, many defective conditions were never repaired. Our Client directly notified Mercedes-Benz, USA that he desired a buy-back of the Vehicle, but the manufacturer refused to reimburse our Client.

After retaining our attorneys at 888Lemon28, Mercedes-Benz of Encino and Mercedes-Benz, USA repurchased the defective Vehicle and our firm recovered $113,224.69 on behalf of our Client.

Used Car Lemon Law Sacramento CA, Ford F-150

Case Description

Our Client purchased used 2007 Ford F-150 bearing VIN 1FTPW14577KC34708 that had been previously modified with a lift kit and oversized wheels prior to its purchase by our Client. Within five months following the sale of the Vehicle, our Client began experiencing numerous defects and malfunctions, including power steering issues and brake failure. The Dealer would not repair the issues and would not honor the Certified Warranty, claiming that the Vehicle should not have been sold as a Certified Pre-Owned vehicle due to aftermarket lift kit and wheels. In what was the final straw, our Client nearly escaped a collision with a center divider after the Vehicle’s power steering failed, and the front left tire flew off. The manufacturer refused to repair the inoperable Vehicle and our Client decided to find a Lemon Law attorney.

After retaining our attorneys at Lemon28, our office was able to obtain a Jury Verdict (Judgment) against Suburban Motors, Inc. and Ford Motor Company in the sum of $420,800.75 on behalf of our Client.

Used Car Lemon Law Sherman Oaks CA, BMW X5

Case Description

Our client purchased a 2009 BMW X5 with a Certified Pre-Owned warranty and a BMW Extended Service Contract, which extended the standard manufacturer warranty to 6 years or 100,000 miles. Within a month after purchase, the Vehicle began exhibiting a burning smell, excessive vibrations, odd noises, and drivability problems. Our Client repeatedly took the Vehicle in for warranty repairs, however, the problems would return. The Dealer attempted repairs on the Vehicle’s multiple systems, including drivetrain, fuel delivery, electronic controls, and braking system. The Vehicle’s engine problems were continuous and, ultimately, the Vehicle’s engine shut-off while driving.

In a bold move, BMW not only denied that our client’s vehicle was a Lemon but denied there was warranty coverage at all.

After a 1 week jury trial, the attorneys at 888Lemon28 obtained a judgment a judgment against BMW of North America in the sum of $155,419.29


Lemon Law Burbank Mercedes SL550

Case Description

The car owner began experiencing problems with her vehicle after the presumption period, which in California is within the 18 month or 18,000 miles from when the vehicle was first purchased. The owner contacted the Mercedes-Benz Customer Assistance Center and was erroneously told by a representative of the manufacturer that her vehicle would not qualify to be repurchased or replaced under the California lemon law because it was outside the presumption period.

Several times the owner took her Mercedes SL550 in to the dealership for transmission and electrical issues only to be told that no fault could be found. On one occasion, the owner brought her vehicle to a dealership because the vehicle intermittently would not start. After keeping the SL550 for several days, a service writer told the owner that the service department could not duplicate her issues and asked her to pick up her vehicle. When she went in to pick up the SL550, the vehicle did not start in the service drive. Still, the owner was told that her vehicle did not qualify under the California Lemon Law.

The owner was worried for her safety and decided to retain a California lemon law lawyer for help in returning her defective Mercedes SL550. While the vehicle's defects and nonconformities continued, her case was again rejected for being outside the presumption period.

Finally, the SL550 owner contacted LemonLawBoss and within 30 days of the manufacturer receiving a demand, and without any admission of liability or conceding the merit of any of the consumer's claims, the manufacturer offered to repurchase the owner's vehicle and waive any mileage offset that the manufacturer was entitled to by law.

Lemon Law Encino, Mercedes-Benz SL65

Case Description

After eight unsuccessful attempts to have his 2006 Mercedes-Benz SL65 repaired at three different local dealerships, the car owner called the Mercedes-Benz Customer Assistance phone number to request that the manufacturer repurchase or replace his defective Mercedes-Benz SL65. The vehicle was experiencing problems with its Brakes, Active Body Control (ABC) System, Transmission, Electrical System, Check Engine Lights and various other defects and nonconformities. The owner's Mercedes SL65 had been in for repair 8 times for a total of 28 days.

One month later, the owner called to check on the status of his request and to inform MBUSA that his SL65 had been in for 3 more repair attempts totaling 5 additional days. The Mercedes vehicle owner was informed that MBUSA was still looking into his repair history.

Over the next few weeks the Mercedes SL65 went in for repairs 2 more times totaling an additional 11 days. Almost 2 months after first contacting the Mercedes-Benz Customer Assistance department, and with a vehicle that had been in for 13 separate repair attempts totaling 44 days, the owner of the defective Mercedes received a letter from Mercedes-Benz USA informing the consumer that his vehicle did not meet the standards of California Lemon Law, but that MBUSA would offer him the reimbursement of two of his payments as an act of "Goodwill".

Within the next 30 days, the Mercedes SL65 went back in to the service department 4 more times for an additional 9 more days. The vehicle owner wrote the Head of Service for Mercedes-Benz and the Head of Mercedes-Benz Western Region informing them that he had a vehicle that qualified to be replaced or repurchased under the California Lemon Law and that Mercedes was not adhering to the applicable California lemon law statutes. The SL65 owner suggested that he would get a lawyer if Mercedes did not meet its legal obligations.

2 days later, the owner of the defective Mercedes-Benz SL65 discovered that the passenger side of his vehicle has collapsed due to another problem with the vehicle's ABC system. The owner calls the department head of Mercedes Customer Assistance Center to inform him of the situation and express that the vehicle must be repurchased pursuant to California's Lemon Law.

Disregarding the owner's safety, the Mercedes Customer Assistance Center Department Head attempted to diagnose the vehicle over the phone and have the owner drive the defective vehicle to the second closest dealership to the owner to be examined. The owner refused and when the tow truck driver arrived, the owner was warned that driving the vehicle with the collapsed system like it was could have likely put the driver in a life-threatening situation.

The owner again sent requests to the same department heads of Mercedes apprising them of the newest developments and requesting his vehicle being repurchased. The owner received a reply email that the Department Head of Mercedes Customer Assistance Center was “empowered” to make decisions on behalf of MBUSA and that a specialist will look at the owner's vehicle.

At the dealership, the service writer looked over the vehicle's service history and volunteered information that the vehicle should have been repurchased for at least 2 separate issues. The owner relayed the service writer's comment on to the heads of Mercedes-Benz and 2 days later an offer from the Customer Assistance Center on behalf of the manufacturer agreed to repurchase the owner’s vehicle. The letter stated that a third-party group would calculate a reimbursement amount based on state lemon laws.

The Impartial Group's Buyback Calculations

A few weeks after Mercedes had agreed to buyback the vehicle, a representative from the impartial group called to introduce himself and inform the owner how long the repurchase would take and what procedures were going to be involved. The impartial representative asked the owner if he had an idea of what the dollar amount or calculation of the repurchase would be. The owner, instead of answering, asked the representative what calculation he had come up with and was informed that it should be around $70,600. The owner informed the representative that by law the repurchase amount should be around $75,000 to which the impartial representative said OK, and that he would get in touch with MBUSA.

About 2 weeks later the representative called the owner and left message informing that he (the impartial representative) had made a mistake in his calculations and that he would send the owner a fax with MBUSA’s adjusted offer. The adjusted "repurchase offer" that followed was for $21,172.26

The owner called the impartial representative confused as to why the offer was so much lower than both his and the representative’s initial calculations and expressed his dissatisfaction. The impartial representative suggested that the Lemon law may not apply and that perhaps MBUSA was simply making the offer as a “good will” gesture. The impartial representative informed the plaintiff that he would talk with MBUSA and get back to the owner as soon as he got a response.

A couple of weeks later after leaving the impartial representative several messages asking for an update, the representative informed the owner that the offer had not changed and was firm. The owner was informed that it was a “proactive repurchase and has nothing to do with the Lemon Law”. When asked by the owner if the impartial representative was truly impartial, the representative acknowledged that while the group used the word impartial in their name, the group was not actually impartial as they worked directly for the manufacturer. The owner was told that a process had to be in place, and that MBUSA hired the Impartial Group to facilitate that process. The owner expressed his disappointment and dissatisfaction.

A few weeks later, the owner again called the representative who stated that MBUSA had advised him that the vehicle did not qualify as a Lemon under the applicable statutes (despite MBUSA’s previous admission in writing that in fact it did qualify), but that the representative "will calculate reimbursement amount based on applicable state lemon laws and contact you to review and obtain verbal acceptance of the calculation”. The owner received a “revised repurchase offer” for $32,858.75 made by MBUSA.

Recognizing that the representative was not impartial and that the manufacturer was not going to follow the buyback calculation as outlined by the California lemon law because they claimed they were only repurchasing the vehicle as a “good will” gesture, the owner retained the LemonLawBoss.

Shortly thereafter, without any admission of liability or conceding the merit of any of the owner's claims, the manufacturer repurchased the owner’s vehicle, followed the calculation for reimbursement outlined by the California lemon law and paid additional monies to the buyer.

The buyer agreed to the settlement and chose not to pursue the manufacturer or the "Impartial Group" in court.