News & Publications

On December 5, GMSR’s co-managing partner, Cindy Tobisman, argued on behalf of car consumer, Lisa Niedermeier, at the California Supreme Court.

GMSR’s client sued an auto manufacturer under California’s Lemon Law (the Song-Beverly Act) for failing to repair or replace her defective vehicle despite sixteen repair attempts and three requests for a buyback.  A jury found in her favor, finding that the manufacturer willfully shirked its duties.  Yet, the manufacturer argued that it should get to reduce the damage award by the $19,000 credit that plaintiff received towards the purchase price of a new vehicle when she traded in her defective vehicle.  After the Court of Appeal agreed with the manufacturer, GMSR petitioned for review by the California Supreme Court, which granted review to answer two questions:

(1) Does the statutory restitution remedy under the Song-Beverly Act necessarily include an offset for a trade-in credit?

(2) If the amount that a consumer has received in a trade-in transaction must be subtracted from the consumer’s recovery, should that amount be subtracted from the statutory restitution remedy or from the consumer’s total recovery?

To watch the oral argument, click HERE.

To read GMSR’s petition for review and merits briefs in GMSR’s California Supreme Court Watch, click HERE.

To read Law360’s articles about the argument, click the two links below (subscription required):

What’s At Stake As Calif. High Court Hears ‘Lemon Law’ Battle, Law 360 (Dec. 4, 2023).

Calif. Justice Asks ‘What’s Consumer To Do?’ In Lemon Fight, Law 360 (Dec. 5, 2023).

• Tobisman to the Court: “I think most people just want their car to work.”
• “[T]hroughout the hearing, multiple justices underscored that the carmaker’s violations were found to be willful and that the automaker rejected multiple requests to repurchase the consumer’s vehicle before she traded it in with a third party.”
• “After the hearing, Tobisman said in a statement that the justices raised intelligent and nuanced questions during the hearing ‘about this critically important consumer-protection statute.'”