get a free case evaluation | Fast, Easy, & Stress-Free
Fast, Easy, & Stress-Free
Recent Settlements
A first-time car buyer working her way through college had always wanted a Dodge Charger. While browsing craigslist for used vehicles, she thought she found her dream car when she saw dealer Southcoast Automotive Liquidators (dba Discount Auto Plaza)’s advertisement for a 2009 black Dodge Charger priced at $9,995.00. Unbeknownst to the buyer, Discount Auto Plaza did not have the car they were advertising, and were unlawfully engaging in bait and switch advertising to trick used car buyers to come into their dealership, where they could more easily take advantage of them.
Buyer lived in Oxnard and Discount Auto Plaza was located in South Gate. Before Buyer and her mother made the long drive to South Gate, Buyer’s mother called the dealership to confirm the vehicle was still available and spoke an employee named Sergio. During that phone call, which was in Spanish, Sergio confirmed that the exact Charger they saw on craigslist was available – reiterating that the car had 42,000 miles and was the only black Charger on the Dealer’s lot. Sergio further stated that although the Charger was priced at $9,995, Discount Auto Plaza’s manager could lower the price to $9,000 if they came in.
A few days later, Buyer’s stepfather called the dealership to again confirm the Discount Auto had the Charger in stock before traveling down to the dealer. A female employee again confirmed the Charger was still available for $9,995.00 with 42,000 miles. After being assured twice by two separate Dealer employees that the Charger had 42,000 miles and was available for the advertised price, Buyer and her mother drove to South Gate to view the Charger.
When the Buyer and her mother arrived at Discount Auto and asked to see Sergio about buying the Charger, a salesman named Ali misrepresented that he was Sergio and showed them a black Charger with 107,000 miles on the odometer. When Buyer asked to see the Charger with 42,000 miles, Ali stated that Discount Auto Plaza did not have a Dodge Charger with 42,000 miles, and instead stated “this will be an excellent replacement”.
The Dodge Charger offered had 107,000 miles and the buyer noticed that there was no sticker or sales price on the vehicle. Buyer also noticed some dents and scratches outside, rips and tears inside, and a warning light flashing on the console. Ali promised that Discount Auto would fix all of the problems if Buyer purchased the Charger. When Buyer’s mother questioned Ali about lowering the price to $9,000 as she discussed over the phone, she was told that “the $9,000 price is for cash buyers only.” Needing to purchase a car that night, the buyer agreed to buy the car with considerably higher mileage for $9,995.
Ali then handed Buyer off to another Discount Auto Plaza employee named Lupe, who went over the purchase paperwork. There, Buyer noticed in the stack of sales documents that Discount Auto was selling the vehicle for $16,995, a full $7,000 higher than Ali had stated the Charger was being sold for.
When Buyer and her mom questioned Lupe about why the selling price was $7,000 higher than what they agreed, Lupe replied, “We’re just throwing numbers out there just to get started” and added, “All those numbers will change once your credit is approved. That is not the amount you will end up paying.” Lupe further stated that “In six months, we’ll switch the finance company, and the price will decrease drastically, and in the end, the price will be $11,000.
When Buyer’s mother asked what the numbers in the boxes that list annual percentage rate, finance charge, amount financed, and total payments on the sales contract meant, Lupe told her to “ignore the numbers, they don’t mean anything, all the numbers will be fixed. You are not paying the amounts in the boxes.” Buyer’s mother questioned Lupe if she was sure, and again brought up that the Dodge Charger was advertised for $9,995. Lupe said, “I’m sure, you can trust me!” Buyer relied on all of the representations made by Discount Auto Plaza and signed the documents where Lupe told her to sign without further explanation. Further, the purchase was eventually financed by Veros Credit but the numbers in the sales documents never changed.
While signing the Sale’s contract, Buyer heard a loud commotion outside the room and a woman scream, “oh my god, he hit Sergio!” Ali and Sergio had apparently gotten into a physical fight over who was going to get the commission over Buyer purchasing the Charger while buyer was signing the sales documents. Shortly thereafter, the police arrived, and while Buyer and her mother wanted to leave, they couldn’t because Discount Auto Plaza had taken her driver’s license and wouldn’t return it until after the sales paperwork was finished.
Lupe then presented Buyer with a contract cancellation option agreement, which gives a consumer the opportunity to purchase a right to cancel the contract option, but misled Buyer by stating that by Buyer signing it, Buyer couldn’t cancel the contract. Discount Auto Plaza also added an additional $895 charge for “GAP” insurance, (Guaranteed Asset Protection), without giving the buyer the option to choose not to purchase it. Further, although Buyer and her mother only spoke Spanish with both Sergio and Lupe regarding the sale of the car, none of the sales documents were in Spanish as required by California law.
After signing the purchase documents, Buyer pointed out to Lupe the Dodge Charger’s damage that needed to be fixed as agreed, and Lupe took photographs. Discount Auto’s manager came out shortly thereafter, and told Buyer she needed to take the car home that day, but she could make an appointment to return the Charger for repairs. The manager promised that if anything was wrong with the Charger, the Dealer would fix it, including the dents and scratches outside, rips and tears inside, and a warning light flashing on the console. Although Lupe and Buyer exchanged several text messages in Spanish after the purchase, confirming what the Dealer had agreed to repair, Discount Auto never made the repairs as promised, violating California’s Lemon Law.
About a month after purchase, the Charger began overheating and had problems with the air conditioning. Buyer was forced to take the Charger to an independent repair shop, Auto Tech in Oxnard, to have it inspected and get an estimate for repairs because Dealer refused to accept the vehicle for repairs as promised. Auto Tech’s technician informed the Buyer that the Charger needed numerous repairs including: new spark plugs, new air filter, new cabin filter, that the air condition was not working, that there was coolant leaking from the upper coolant outlet, the front and rear brakes were only at 30% and the front and rear tires were only at 40%.
Shortly thereafter, buyer retained our firm against Discount Auto Plaza regarding their acts of fraud, misrepresentations, false advertising, bait and switch advertising, selling a vehicle over its advertised price, forced placement of GAP insurance, and failure to repair the subject vehicle under California’s Lemon Law.
Discount Auto Plaza refused to cooperate, and forced the matter to trial, where the court awarded our client full rescission (cancellation) of the sales contract, plus an additional award of $15,409.95, as well as another $23,114.93 in civil penalties due to their willful dishonesty, and further ordered the dealership to pay the buyer’s attorney’s fees. Discount Auto Plaza decided to appeal the judgment, but lost again, and was ordered to pay the additional attorney’s fees arising out of the buyer having to defend the appeal.
Buyer purchased a “certified pre-owned” 2009 BMW x5 from Center Automotive (dba Center BMW) in Van Nuys. The sale came with BMW’s Certified Pre-Owned Warranty, but Buyer wanted additional protection, so he bought a BMW Extended Service Contract.
A few months after purchase, Buyer noticed that the vehicle’s check-engine light was activating and deactivating, and when activated, the x5 would “shake.” Center BMW confirmed the symptoms and claimed to have fixed the problems by replacing the engine’s ignition coils. Yet, the vehicle’s problems persisted.
A few weeks later, the vehicle would unexpectedly “lurch” and “kick.” Again, Center BMW confirmed the symptoms and claimed to have fixed the problem by doing some work on the vehicle’s transmission. Yet, the vehicle’s problems persisted.
About a month later, Buyer noticed the engine would make odd noises at start-up. Again, Center BMW confirmed the symptoms and claimed to have fixed the problems by replacing the engine’s valve-cover assembly. Yet, the vehicle’s problems persisted.
A few months after that, Buyer again returned the vehicle to dealer due to a “burning odor” from the vehicle. Center BMW diagnosed the odors as harmless and from the air-conditioning system. However, it turned out that something was burning after all because, shortly thereafter, the vehicle began shutting off while at a stop or when slowing. Buyer would also hear a “rattle” from the front of the vehicle upon acceleration and also a “pinging” under heavy load. The dealer again investigated the issue, this time discovering that the vehicle had low fuel pressure, and that some of the wiring of the fuel pump had melted.
The dealer replaced the fuel pump and wiring and told Plaintiff the problems were fixed. Yet, even these fuel-pump repairs did not fix the vehicle’s engine problems.
The vehicle continued to randomly hesitate or shut-off while driving and the check-engine lights would sporadically activate then quickly deactivate. Since a check engine lights would not stay on long enough, Buyer was unable to capture an “error code”.
Ultimately, the BMW x5 suddenly shut off while Buyer was driving on the freeway. Although fearing for his life, he was able to pull over, and this time, the vehicle’s check-engine light stayed on long enough for Buyer to bring it to a service shop and capture an error code on the vehicle’s computer. The service shop recorded the check engine light error code “2A82” which indicated an internal engine fault with the vehicle’s “VANOS” valve-timing system. The main symptoms of this defect are hesitation, loss of power and check-engine lights. In other words, the symptoms were consistent with what Plaintiff had been reporting to since purchasing the BMW x5.
Shortly thereafter, Buyer retained our firm against Center BMW for selling a defective vehicle and failing to repair the vehicle under California’s Lemon Law. Center BMW refused to cooperate and forced the matter to trial. At the close of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Buyer and the court ordered Center BMW to pay Buyer monetary compensation for damages and pay for Buyer’s attorney fees and costs. In total, the judgement in Buyer’s favor was over $155,000.
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.
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.
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.
Buyer, who was located in Perris, visited Mira Motors in Ontario to look at some cars available for purchase. When Buyer asked the Mira Motors general manager, named Sam, about the condition of a 2008 Dodge Caliber on the dealer’s lot, Sam told Buyer that “Everything is good, we got it checked out.” Sam then reassured Buyer stating the Vehicle was in perfect running order with no mechanical issues. Buyer was then given a printout similar to “Kelly Blue Book” stating the vehicle’s value. Based on the dealership’s representations and believing he was getting a good deal, Buyer agreed to purchase the Dodge Caliber.
Excited about the purchase, Buyer wanted warranty coverage for additional protection. Sam said the Dealer would “throw in” a 90-day warranty at no charge and “If anything goes wrong, bring the car in to any Dodge dealership and all repairs under the warranty will be covered.” Buyer was then given a large stack of sales documents to sign. Unknown to Buyer, the “90-day warranty” was really just a service contract with a $1,500 maximum repair limit and Buyer was actually being charged $114 for it. The service contract was never disclosed or itemized on the contract, Buyer’s Guide, nor Optional Goods and Services Disclosure. Further, the sales documents did not contain a “Buyer’s Guide” as required by law and Dealer did not properly disclose that a portion of Buyer’s down payment was deferred.
Within less than a month of purchase, Buyer noticed a knocking noise coming from the engine compartment while driving. When Buyer checked the oil, he saw that there was no oil in the engine and noticed a burnt oil smell. Buyer immediately put 3 quarts of oil into the Vehicle and took the Vehicle to Moss Bros. Dodge in Moreno Valley for repair. Buyer left the Vehicle with service adviser Carlos Aikerman to verify warranty coverage and have the vehicle inspected.
A few days later, Carlos told Buyer “Your engine, turbo, intercooler, and catalytic converter need to be repaired …your “warranty” is only good for $1,500.” Carlos then estimated that the necessary repairs would cost nearly $11,000. Buyer decided not to proceed with repairs once he learned from Carlos that the “warranty” was not really a warranty but rather was a service contract with a $1,500 coverage limit.
After his conversation with Carlos, Buyer called Mira Motors and asked a manager named Angie if Mira Motors inspects all their vehicles before selling them. Angie replied saying “Mira Motors inspects the brakes, oil, fluids, electrical, etc. of every vehicle”. Buyer then informed Angie of the Dodge Caliber’s horrible mechanical condition and demanded that Mira Motors fix the vehicle or buy it back. Angie told Buyer that Dealer would not pay for the repairs unless the Vehicle was taken to Dealer’s mechanic.
Buyer telephoned Mira Motors’ mechanic but the mechanic spoke very little English, which made it very difficult to communicate. Given the mechanic’s inability to communicate and Buyer previously being told by Mira Motors’ general manager that he could take the vehicle to any Dodge Dealership for repair, Buyer did not feel comfortable sending his Vehicle to Mira Motors’ mechanic. Angie continued to insist that Buyer’s only option was to take the Vehicle to that specific mechanic and eventually told Buyer that Mira Motors would not agree to repair the Vehicle at all.
Shortly thereafter, Buyer retained our firm against Mira Motors regarding their acts of fraud, misrepresentations, and failure to repair the subject vehicle under California’s lemon law. Mira Motors refused to cooperate, and forced the matter to trial, where the court cancelled the contract, awarded our client $18,977.20 in damages, and further ordered the dealership to pay Buyer’s attorney’s fees.
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.
Several months after purchasing a brand new Nissan Altima, the owner started experiencing problems with the Altima's electrical system, radio, door locks and transmission. The Nissan owner's problems included the power door locks rapidly locking and unlocking as well as binding and occasionally locking passengers inside the Nissan. The owner also heard thumping noises under the Altima, and felt a shaking hesitation when he accelerated between 45 to 60 miles an hour followed by the car surging forward. In addition, the Altima's radio had several problems, the windows made noises inside the door when going up and down, and an airbag light went on for no apparent reason. Luckily, the California Lemon Law protected the owner from being stuck with a defective Nissan Altima.
During the first eight visits, the Nissan Altima was never kept at the dealership for more than a few hours, and despite the fact that the defects were getting worse, quite often the owner of the Altima was told that either no fault was found, or that the Nissan dealership could not duplicate his concerns. Frustrated, the owner called Nissan's corporate office and told them that he was tired of going to the dealership all the time, just to get the run around and not have any of the Altima's problems fixed. Nissan promised they would help the owner.
Shorty thereafter, the owner took the Nissan Altima back to the dealership where Nissan found issues and attempted to repair the vehicle's windows, door locks and transmission. Even after keeping the Altima for eight days to replace the transmission, the owner continued experiencing all of the same problems and defects.
The owner called Nissan's corporate office again and told them that because they could not fix the problems with his car, he wanted his money back. Nissan replied, "If we were to give back money to everyone who had a problem, we would go broke." The owner said he was going to get a lawyer, but the Nissan representative told the owner that "there is no need for that," and offered to have someone from their legal team call him back within 2 weeks.
Nissan's legal department never called the owner back as promised and when the owner called Nissan, they apologized and said that they would "send a special tech out to check the car." An appointment was set at the local Nissan Dealership and the owner took the day off work to make the Altima available for the inspection.
The Nissan Tech Specialist arrived an hour late for the appointment at the dealership and only spent 2 minutes test driving with the owner. The owner explained that the Altima should be driven on the highway to duplicate the transmission surge, but the tech said he would inspect it further when they got back to the dealership. A couple of hours later, the owner was informed his Nissan Altima was ready for him to pick up. After questioning why it was ready so quickly, the owner was informed that the Nissan's special tech had left shortly after the owner had. A couple of days later the the owner was told that the tech hadn't found anything wrong with the owner's Nissan Altima.
The owner called the Law Offices of Robert B. Mobasseri, explained his situation and that he felt like he had no choice but to be stuck with a Lemon. Initially, Nissan stood by their claim that the car was inspected by an expert and therefore did not qualify as a lemon, but after the law offices discovered damaging facts relating to the dealership and the inspection, the Los Angeles lemon law firm had the Altima undergo an additional inspection and the manufacturer agreed to repurchase the owner’s Nissan Altima without any admission of liability, or conceding any merit to the owner's claims.
The buyer agreed to the settlement and chose not to pursue the manufacturer or the dealership in court.
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 Lemon Law Auto Fraud, our firm obtained a judgment against CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. and Santander Consumer USA for a repurchase of the Jeep Commander
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 Lemon Law Auto Fraud, 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.