>

Recent Settlements

Pasadena
2008 Continental GTC
Monetary Settlement

Bentley does not have a dealership in Oregon, so the buyer purchased a Bentley Continental GTC from Rusnak in Pasadena, California and had the vehicle shipped to his address in Oregon. Shortly after receiving his Bentley, the buyer started experiencing problems with vehicle's airbags, seat belts and electrical system. As Bentley also did not have an authorized service center in the state of Oregon, the buyer was forced to bring the Bentley back to the Rusnak dealership in California for the warranty repairs.

After many unsuccessful repairs, it became clear to the buyer that his Bentley was a Lemon. The buyer was told several times that because he had shipped his Bentley to Oregon, the vehicle would not qualify to be repurchased under California Lemon Law and that unfortunately, he had no choice but to accept his situation.

After more than 8 repair attempts for the same defect resulting in more than 75 days in an authorized Bentley repair facility, the buyer was referred to the Law Offices of Robert Mobasseri. Through negotiations with Bentley, and without admission of liability or conceding any merit to the consumer's California lemon law claim, the manufacturer offered to reimburse the buyer for any inconvenience that he may have suffered with a good will payment of $95,000.

The buyer accepted Bentley's goodwill offer and chose no to pursue the manufacture in court.

May, 2010
Malibu
2009 S550
Vehicle Repurchased

Car buyer went into a dealership to purchase a new car and was asked to sign a blank credit application to have his "credit checked". The buyer purchased a 2008 Mercedes-Benz CLS63.

Almost immediately after purchasing the vehicle, the buyer discovered that the vehicle had damage and that some of the items listed on the vehicle's window sticker as included were missing. The dealership told the buyer that he would need to purchase the missing items. The buyer expressed dissatisfaction and requested that the dealership take back the Mercedes CLS63. The dealership refused to take back the vehicle, but offered to sell the buyer a different vehicle instead. Reluctantly the buyer purchased a 2009 S550 and the dealer used the 2 day old CLS63 as a trade-in with negative equity against the new car.

The buyer complained several times of the vehicle's cost as well as to the additional services that the finance manager insisted were required to make the exchange, but that were listed on the paperwork as an option. The buyer felt pressured into purchasing the $102,630.00 Mercedes-Benz S550.

On both sales, the loan application for the cars were not filled out by the buyer, but instead were filled out by one or more employees of the dealership in different handwriting. In filling out the credit applications, the dealership misspelled the buyer's name and address; the dealership grossly inflated buyer's income much higher than what he informed the dealership that he made; the dealership fictitiously added rental income that the buyer did not have; the dealership fictitiously added a $400,000 investment portfolio to the credit application that did not exist; the dealership self-appraised and/or exaggerated the value of two properties owned by the buyer; the dealership grossly exaggerated the buyer's length of employment and fictitiously stated that the buyer was retired.

The buyer tried several times to return vehicle to dealership and asked for copies of his loan and credit applications. The dealership refused to give the buyer copies of his credit applications and instead responded by the General Manager of the dealership calling to threaten the filing of a malicious lawsuit against the buyer.

The buyer retained the Law Offices of Robert B. Mobasseri to request an immediate repurchase and/or rescission of his vehicle and be reimbursed for all related expenses to both vehicles. In return, the buyer would not pursue charges of fraud against the dealership in court.

The dealership, without any admission of liability or conceding the merit of any of the consumer's claim, offered within 30 days of receiving the demand by the Law Offices of Robert. B Mobasseri, to rescind the buyer's vehicle contract and reimburse the buyer for all expenses related to the purchase of both vehicles.

November, 2009
Encino
2006 SL65
Vehicle Repurchased plus Civil Penalties and Punitive Damages

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 Law Offices of Robert B. Mobasseri.

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" for fraud in court.

September, 2009
Burbank
2007 SL550
Vehicle Repurchased

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 the Law Offices of Robert B. Mobasseri 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.

June, 2009

Free Consultation • Se Habla Español

Lemon Law Auto Fraud serves the following California counties: Inyo, Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Mono, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare, and Ventura.

All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
See If Your Vehicle Qualifies Under The Lemon Law
2008 Continental GTC $95,000.00
2009 S550 $11,658.56
2006 SL65 $124,000.00
2007 SL550 $15,105.95
VEHICLE FRAUD DEALER FRAUD REPAIR FRAUD
Have You Been a
Victim of Fraud?
Disclaimer: The following Lemon Law and Auto Fraud information has been compiled from various public sources. It is presented online for informational use only, and without warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness. This site does not replace any official versions of the information presented, nor does use of this information constitute an attorney-client relationship. It is always recommended that you do not make any decisions about any legal matter without first consulting an attorney to ensure that all of your rights are protected, as well as to find out if your vehicle meets the established Lemon Law or Auto Fraud Criteria for your state.