Our California lemon law lawyers at our California office of Lemon Law Group Partners can represent lemon cars victims throughout California. Our lemon law firm was started by attorneys who spent over a decade defending one of Detroit’s “Big 3” Auto Manufacturers from Lemon Law claims. Now we’re here helping you.
Kathryn B. Abrams is an attorney who is admitted to practice law in the states of California and Michigan, and in the United States District Court, Central District of California. She handles the Firm’s California cases. She has been practicing law and litigating for over 9 years. Mrs. Abrams graduated from the University of Michigan Honors College with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. She then obtained her Juris Doctorate from Wayne State University Law School.
In 2009, after many years of practice, Mrs. Abrams founded Abrams & Waldstein, LLP, in Beverly Hills, California, where she specializes in general litigation, representation of small businesses and estate planning considerations. Mrs. Abrams is a member of the American Bar Association, Los Angeles County Bar Association, Beverly Hills Bar Association and Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles.
Our unique “insider” perspective means we settle lemon law claims fast and maximize your reimbursement. Call today and understand your rights under California Lemon Law statute of limitation.
The California lemon law firm was created by lawyers who are among the most qualified and successful lemon law lawyers that used to represent one of the Big 3 auto manufacturers since 1993, but now serve consumers in Lemon Law cases.
Our law firm was formed by lawyers who are among the most qualified and successful lemon law lawyers that used to represent one of the Big 3 auto manufacturers since 1993, but now serve consumers in Lemon Law cases. With lawyers who have experience practicing lemon law claims since 1993, we have successfully handled thousands of cases. Our California lemon law lawyers have the unique resources of knowing how the automakers value their cases and how to get the most compensation for the consumer.
Call now our California Lemon Law Lawyers for a FREE CASE REVIEW to see if your case qualifies. Our firm has helped clients get all of their money back, and the attorney fees paid for by the Manufacturer, NOT YOU. Call Toll-Free: 1-888-744-5099, or Fill Out “REQUEST A CALLBACK” form for your free case review.
In most cases, we can represent you by phone. After your first consultation, your California lemon law lawyer will outline all of the documentation required to proceed with your claim (service records, warranty, etc.). In circumstances where documentation is not accessible, we can help to obtain it from your dealer or manufacturer on your behalf. After that, we negotiate to get you the largest settlement possible.
Yes, if your car is still safe to drive, you can continue to use your vehicle until your case is settled.
If your car is found to be a lemon, you can get a reimbursement or vehicle repurchased, including your down payment, trade in, monthly payments and taxes, – minus a small usage fee.
No. You never pay any fees if we don’t win. And if you qualify for the Lemon Law, the way most Lemon Law statutes work, the manufacturer may have to pay your attorney’s fees.
Our lemon lawyers team have handled thousands of cases since 1993. We have to tools and knowledge to make sure your case is a successful one. If your car is not under the warranty, we will help you find the best legal solution to your automobile problem.
California Civil Code Section 1793.22
(a)This section shall be known and may be cited as the Tanner Consumer Protection Act.
(b) It shall be presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been made to conform a new motor vehicle to the applicable express warranties if, within 18 months from delivery to the buyer or 18,000 miles on the odometer of the vehicle, whichever occurs first, one or more of the following occurs:
The same nonconformity results in a condition that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven and the nonconformity has been subject to repair two or more times by the manufacturer or its agents, and the buyer or lessee has at least once directly notified the manufacturer of the need for the repair of the nonconformity.
The same nonconformity has been subject to repair four or more times by the manufacturer or its agents and the buyer has at least once directly notified the manufacturer of the need for the repair of the nonconformity.
The vehicle is out of service by reason of repair of nonconformities by the manufacturer or its agents for a cumulative total of more than 30 calendar days since delivery of the vehicle to the buyer. The 30-day limit shall be extended only if repairs cannot be performed due to conditions beyond the control of the manufacturer or its agents. The buyer shall be required to directly notify the manufacturer pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) only if the manufacturer has clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the buyer, with the warranty or the owner’s manual, the provisions of this section and that of subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2, including the requirement that the buyer must notify the manufacturer directly pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2). The notification, if required, shall be sent to the address, if any, specified clearly and conspicuously by the manufacturer in the warranty or owner’s manual. This presumption shall be a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof, and it may be asserted by the buyer in any civil action, including an action in small claims court, or other formal or informal proceeding.
(c) If a qualified third-party dispute resolution process exists, and the buyer receives timely notification in writing of the availability of that qualified third-party dispute resolution process with a description of its operation and effect, the presumption in subdivision (b) may not be asserted by the buyer until after the buyer has initially resorted to the qualified third-party dispute resolution process as required in subdivision (d). Notification of the availability of the qualified third-party dispute resolution process is not timely if the buyer suffers any prejudice resulting from any delay in giving the notification. If a qualified third-party dispute resolution process does not exist, or if the buyer is dissatisfied with that third-party decision, or if the manufacturer or its agent neglects to promptly fulfill the terms of the qualified third-party dispute resolution process decision after the decision is accepted by the buyer, the buyer may assert the presumption provided in subdivision (b) in an action to enforce the buyer’s rights under subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2. The findings and decision of a qualified third-party dispute resolution process shall be admissible in evidence in the action without further foundation. Any period of limitation of actions under any federal or California laws with respect to any person shall be extended for a period equal to the number of days between the date a complaint is filed with a third-party dispute resolution process and the date of its decision or the date before which the manufacturer or its agent is required by the decision to fulfill its terms if the decision is accepted by the buyer, whichever occurs later.
(d)A qualified third-party dispute resolution process shall be one that does all of the following:
Complies with the minimum requirements of the Federal Trade Commission for informal dispute settlement procedures as set forth in Part 703 of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as those regulations read on January 1, 1987.
Renders decisions which are binding on the manufacturer if the buyer elects to accept the decision.
Prescribes a reasonable time, not to exceed 30 days after the decision is accepted by the buyer, within which the manufacturer or its agent must fulfill the terms of its decisions.
Provides arbitrators who are assigned to decide disputes with copies of, and instruction in, the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission’s regulations in Part 703 of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as those regulations read on January 1, 1987, Division 2 (commencing with Section 2101) of the Commercial Code, and this chapter
Requires the manufacturer, when the process orders, under the terms of this chapter, either that the nonconforming motor vehicle be replaced if the buyer consents to this remedy or that restitution be made to the buyer, to replace the motor vehicle or make restitution in accordance with paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2.
Provides, at the request of the arbitrator or a majority of the arbitration panel, for an inspection and written report on the condition of a nonconforming motor vehicle, at no cost to the buyer, by an automobile expert who is independent of the manufacturer.
Takes into account, in rendering decisions, all legal and equitable factors, including, but not limited to, the written warranty, the rights and remedies conferred in regulations of the Federal Trade Commission contained in Part 703 of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as those regulations read on January 1, 1987, Division 2 (commencing with Section 2101) of the Commercial Code, this chapter, and any other equitable considerations appropriate in the circumstances. Nothing in this chapter requires that, to be certified as a qualified third-party dispute resolution process pursuant to this section, decisions of the process must consider or provide remedies in the form of awards of punitive damages or multiple damages, under subdivision (c) of Section 1794, or of attorneys’ fees under subdivision (d) of Section 1794, or of consequential damages other than as provided in subdivisions (a) and(b)of Section 1794, including, but not limited to, reasonable repair, towing, and rental car costs actually incurred by the buyer.
Requires that no arbitrator deciding a dispute may be a party to the dispute and that no other person, including an employee, agent, or dealer for the manufacturer, may be allowed to participate substantively in the merits of any dispute with the arbitrator unless the buyer is allowed toparticipate also. Nothing in this subdivision prohibits any member of anarbitration board from deciding a dispute.
Obtains and maintains certification by the Department of Consumer Affairs pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 472) of Division 1 of the Business and Professions Code.
(e)For the purposes of subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2 and this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
“Nonconformity” means a nonconformity which substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of the new motor vehicle to the buyer or lessee.
“New motor vehicle” means a new motor vehicle that is bought or used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. “New motor vehicle” also means a new motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight under 10,000 pounds that is bought or used primarily for business purposes by a person, including a partnership, limited liability company, corporation, association, or any other legal entity, to which not more than five motor vehicles are registered in this state. “New motor vehicle” includes the chassis, chassis cab, and that portion of a motor home devoted to its propulsion, but does not include any portion designed, used, or maintained primarily for human habitation, a dealer-owned vehicle and a “demonstrator” or other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty but does not include a motorcycle or a motor vehicle which is not registered under the Vehicle Code because it is to be operated or used exclusively off the highways. A demonstrator is a vehicle assigned by a dealer for the purpose of demonstrating qualities and characteristics common to vehicles of the same or similar model and type.
“Motor home” means a vehicular unit built on, or permanently attached to, a self-propelled motor vehicle chassis, chassis cab, or van, which becomes an integral part of the completed vehicle, designed for human habitation for recreational or emergency occupancy.
Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall sell, either at wholesale or retail, lease, or transfer a motor vehicle transferred by a buyer or lessee to a manufacturer pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2 or a similar statute of any other state, unless thenature of the nonconformity experienced by the original buyer or lessee is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the prospective buyer, lessee, or transferee, the nonconformity is corrected, and the manufacturer warrants to the new buyer, lessee, or transferee in writing for a period of one year that the motor vehicle is free of that nonconformity.
Except for the requirement that the nature of the nonconformity be disclosed to the transferee, paragraph (1) does not apply to the transfer of a motor vehicle to an educational institution if the purpose of the transfer is to make the motor vehicle available for use in automotive repair courses.
[EFFECTIVE 1/1/2001. Amended September 26, 2000 (Bill Number: SB 1718) (Chapter 679).] [Previously Amended September 21, 1999 (Bill Number: AB 1290) (Chapter 448).] [Previously Amended July 12, 1999 (Bill Number: SB 966) (Chapter 83).]