Lemon Law Cases

Lemon Law Partners, LLP has handled dozens of significant lemon law cases over the last several years, standing up to every American manufacturer and most foreign car companies. Some of these cases were settled quickly, while others required extensive litigation. The time it takes to resolve a lemon law claim is dependent on the response of the manufacturer. Regardless of the level of cooperation we get from the companies, we stand by our clients. Attorneys Arthur J. Obolsky and Anthony J. Sperber enjoy a challenge and won’t shy away from tough cases. We’re reliable, responsive and aggressive when needed, and we’ll do what it takes to see your case through.

In 1992, Anthony completed his undergraduate studies in political science at the University of California, Berkeley, while simultaneously starting and running his own successful business. From there he moved on to the University of San Francisco School of Law, where he served as an editor of the school’s Law Review journal.

He received many awards during his time at USF Law, including the Faculty Award for Law Review Article of the Year, the American Jurisprudence Award in Contracts, the Moot Court Award for Best Oral Argument and a Public Interest Law Certificate. Anthony was also a member of the McAuliffe Honor Society, and graduated in the top 10% of his class.

Out of law school, Anthony served as an attorney with Littler Mendelson, P.C., a national law firm of over 400 attorneys. There he conducted investigations, provided legal counsel, and litigated on behalf of his clients, from small businesses to Fortune 100 companies. Eventually, this large-firm environment no longer suited him. Anthony’s desire to help clients on a more personal level prompted him to branch out on his own. Today, he works one-on-one with clients alongside Lemon Law Partners, LLP Attorney Arthur J.Obolsky.

Vehicle Defect Stage Resolved Full Refund?
BMW 325xi Acceleration Pre-Litigation Settlement Yes
Chevy Crew Cab Pickup Suspension Early Litigation Yes
Dodge Caravan Electrical Pre-Litigation Settlement Yes
Dodge Dakota QuadCab Brakes Pre-Litigation Settlement Yes
Ducati M900D (Motorcycle) Engine Pre-Litigation Settlement Yes
Ford F250 Brakes, Steering Early Litigation Yes
Ford Focus Engine Early Litigation Yes
GMC Savana Truck Alignment Early Litigation Yes
Infinity QX56 Brakes Pre-Litigation Settlement Yes
KIA Sportage Engine Pre-Litigation Settlement Yes
Lincoln Navigator Electrical Pre-Litigation Settlement Yes
Mercedes C240 Fuel Gauge Pre-Litigation Settlement Yes
Mercedes CLK430 Transmission Pre-Litigation Settlement Yes
Toyota Camry Alignment Pre-Litigation Settlement Yes
Volkswagen Beetle Engine Settlement at Mediation Yes
Volkswagen GTI Electrical Pre-Litigation Settlement Yes

Case 1: Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc.

(Consumer Need Not Prove the Source of the Problem; Only That It Still Persists)

Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc.
90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 583
Cal.App. 4 Dist.,2001.

Summary of facts:

Marcelino Oregel leased a 1998 Isuzu Rodeo in March 1998. He discovered the car was leaking oil and despite bringing it to the dealership several times over the next 10 months for repair, the car was never fixed. Oregel contacted Isuzu and after the company declined to repurchase the vehicle, he contacted an attorney. The attorney filed suit, claiming that Isuzu was violating the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The matter went to trial and Oregel won. The jury found that Isuzu had willfully violated its duty to repurchase the vehicle.


The only step that Song-Beverly imposes on the consumer is that he or she give the manufacturer or its repair facility the opportunity to fix the defective car or truck. The consumer is not responsible if the manufacturer or its agents take advantage of the opportunity. They are also not responsible if the manufacturer or its agents cannot find the problem or attempt to repair it.

Also, the consumer is not obligated to prove the cause of the problem that he or she is having with the vehicle. For example, the consumer doesn’t have to prove the source of an oil leak, or the reason why the car’s engine is stalling. The statute requires only that the consumer show that the defective car or truck failed to conform to its warranties. This may be done by proving that one or more problems persist despite efforts to repair them.

Case 2: Mocek v. Alfa Leisure, Inc.

(Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability Does Not Require Consumer to Attempt Repairs)

Mocek v. Alfa Leisure, Inc.
114 Cal.App.4th 402, 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 546
Cal.App. 4 Dist.,2003.

Summary of facts:

Frank Mocek and his son both purchased the same model fifth-wheel travel trailer from Alfa Leisure, Inc. Almost immediately after purchase, severe problems appeared with the electrical system. A technician from the company offered to remove the trailer from the park where it was located for repair but Mocek refused, saying he wanted a replacement or a refund. When the request was denied, he filed suit. Mocek won on the basis of breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.


A consumer doesn’t even have to provide a manufacturer with a repair opportunity under the lemon law when there’s a breach of the implied warranty, which means the product did not possess even the most basic degree of fitness for ordinary use.

Case 3: Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc.

(Presentment Requirement and Damage Caused by Failure to Repair)

Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc.
144 Cal.App.4th 785, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 731
Cal.App. 5 Dist.,2006.

Summary of facts:

Soon after purchasing a 39-foot Fleetwood travel trailer, Lorna and Francis Robertson discovered a persistent water leak by the shower floor. A technician from the dealership repaired the leak, but water damage had already affected the underbelly of the trailer. Fleetwood agreed to repair the damage but would need to remove the trailer from its location and send it away for repair. The Robertsons instead requested a return of the purchase price, which Fleetwood refused on the grounds that it had not been given the opportunity to repair the original leak (the dealership had). The court eventually found in favor of the Robertsons, finding that they had satisfied the requirement by having a technician repair the trailer on-site and that the water damage had come about as a direct result of the leak.


Several significant results emerge from the Robertson decision.

First, the Court held that Song-Beverly covers not just the defect but the harm resulting from that defect.

Next, the Court held that a consumer can invoke repurchase rights at any point after a reasonable number of repair opportunities have been given to fix the problem. The consumer does not need to provide additional repair opportunities to repair related issues stemming from a problem that was never fully repaired. And if the consumer does in fact provide additional repair opportunities, those are added to the total repair opportunities for that initial problem and will not restart the count from zero.

held that under Song-Beverly, a repair opportunity does not only have to take place at the repair shop. If the manufacturer or its authorized repair facility has chosen, with the consumer’s consent, to undertake repair efforts at the consumer’s residence, then a consumer is deemed to have provided a reasonable repair opportunity each time the repairperson makes a service call to the consumer’s residence.

Elderly widow, whose husband had always handled vehicle matters and purchases during their marriage, went to a local Bay Area dealership and was sold a Certified-Pre-Owned Vehicle—promised to have been rigorously inspected—with pervasive mold and mildew issues throughout the interior.

  • Again and again she contacted the dealership explaining there was excessive water beneath the seat
  • The dealership’s service facility confirmed the entire carpet was wet and that there was mildew throughout, despite promising her that the vehicle was fully inspected and certified by the manufacturer
  • Eventually, the repair technicians found water leaking from the air-conditioning system into the vehicle interior.
  • The vehicle’s interior was torn apart and mold was discovered throughout
  • She reached out to Lemon Law Partners LLP for help. They took the case and filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer under the California Lemon Laws.
  • The manufacturer refused to honor its warranties to the consumer, claimed that the problems with the elderly lady’s vehicle were not covered, and fought Lemon Law Partners LLP vigorously through the court process, forcing them to take the case all the way to a trial by jury.
  • The attorneys at Lemon Law Partners LLP prepared for the jury trial, and fought for weeks, and eventually received a jury verdict in the plaintiff’s favor.
  • They obtained justice for their elderly client and the manufacturer was ordered to buy-back the defective vehicle.

A family with young children, seeking to purchase a reliable new vehicle, ended up being sold a car that was part of a batch of vehicles whose engines were known to stall at high speed, break and ultimately fail.

  • The consumer brought the vehicle in to the repair facility which repeatedly replaced the engine with a different one.
  • Despite having the entire engine repeatedly replaced, the same problems kept happening.
  • The manufacturer knew that the replacement engines that were being put into the vehicle contained the same defects as the engines that were breaking down and being replaced.
  • The family reached out to Lemon Law Partners LLP for help. They took the case and filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer under the California Lemon Laws.
  • The manufacturer fought Lemon Law Partners LLP every step of the way through the court process, refused to provide evidence that would help Plaintiffs prove their case, and made every effort to stall and delay an outcome that was fair and just for the consumer.
  • Eventually, the attorneys at Lemon Law Partners LLP obtained justice for their clients, forcing the manufacturer to take back the defective vehicle.

A consumer purchased a truck with a widespread problem with its transmission.

  • The 4-Wheel drive system in the truck occasionally locked up while being driven and the consumer had difficulty driving when this happened.
  • When the vehicle was driven, sometimes the transmission would shift so aggressively that the vehicle would lunge forward sharply and the consumer felt like he was rear-ended.
  • Sometimes, when the consumer would drive the truck, it would feel like it just shut-off, and when the gas pedal was depressed, the truck “woke-up” and violently lunged forward.
  • The consumer repeatedly brought the truck to the manufacturer’s repair shops and they could not fix the problems.
  • Instead, the repair shop frequently would try to persuade the consumer that everything with the vehicle was “normal” and pretended not to know about the known, widespread transmission problems with the truck whenever he would bring it in for more repairs.
  • Consumer eventually tried asking the manufacturer for assistance, and they disingenuously told him his truck was operating as designed.
  • Consumer reached out to Lemon Law Partners LLP for help. They took the case and filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer under the California Lemon Laws.
  • The manufacturer fought Lemon Law Partners LLP every step of the way through the court process, refused to provide evidence that would help Plaintiffs prove their case, and made every effort to stall and delay an outcome that was fair and just for the consumer.
  • Eventually, Lemon Law Partners LLP obtained justice for their client, got him out of the defective truck and all his money back.

An expensive Travel-Trailer is sold to the consumers with dozens of glaring structural and workmanship problems that cannot be fixed.

  • Right after picking it up, consumers discover paint defects, electrical defects, water leaks and warped walls and doors.
  • Consumers try to get things fixed at the manufacturer’s repair facility, but they only work on a few things at a time, fail to fix the key problems, and ultimately the Travel-Trailer is out of service for over 6 months.
  • The consumers try to get help from the manufacturer time and again, but are disregarded and ignored.
  • They reach out to Lemon Law Partners LLP for help. We take the case and file a lawsuit against the manufacturer under the California Lemon Laws and eventually get the consumers all their money back at the early stages of litigation, forcing the manufacturer to take back the defective travel-trailer.

Not all cases are always fought for months and years (it depends on the specific case and how the position that the manufacturer decides to take in that case). Often, the attorneys at Lemon Law Partners LLP take cases that they are able to resolve for the consumer informally (without having to turn to the judicial system). For example, the following cases were promptly resolved with one or more letters and via informal negotiations:

  • Manufacturer received a letter from our office and reviews the repair history of the vehicle. Within a few months, we persuade the manufacturer that they have to buy-back the defective vehicle and give the consumer back their money.
  • Some examples, including but not limited to:
    1. Ford – small sedans
    2. Jaguar Land Rover – SUV’s
    3. Volkswagen – various
    4. Ford – pickup trucks
    5. Chevrolet (General Motors) – various model vehicles/trucks
    6. Other manufacturers—various makes/models:
      • BMW
      • Audi
      • Honda
      • Toyota
      • Fiat / Chrysler / Alfa Romeo
      • Nissan
      • Lexus
      • Mercedes-Benz
      • Various RV / Travel Trailer Manufacturers
      • Volvo
      • Mazda
      • Hyundai
      • Kia
      • Subaru
      • Acura
      • Motorcycle Manufacturers

Do I have a lemon?

Schedule a Free Case Evaluation With a California Lemon Law Attorney at Lemon Law Partners, LLP

When you have a lemon on your hands and are struggling with the manufacturer to fix the problem, we can help. Call the skilled attorneys with Lemon Law Partners, LLP for a free case evaluation. We serve Berkeley, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, and all of California.

(800) 887-9362