GMSR persuades California Supreme Court that economic loss rule doesn’t bar all fraudulent concealment claims between contracting parties
Courts have split over whether a plaintiff can assert a tort claim for fraudulent concealment during the performance of a contract, or whether such claims are barred by the common-law economic loss rule. The California Supreme Court accepted the Ninth Circuit’s request to resolve the
Court of Appeal’s published opinion holds that California lemon law protects used car buyers with active new-car warranties
GMSR’s clients discovered that their used vehicle was defective, but the manufacturer refused to repair or replace it. They sued the manufacturer under California’s lemon law, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, which requires manufacturers to either replace defective cars or offer the consumer a refund.
California Supreme Court: GMSR’s consumer client is entitled to full statutory restitution under California’s lemon law—without offset
GMSR client Lisa Niedermeier gave the manufacturer of her defective Jeep Wrangler more than a dozen chances to fix the vehicle before asking the manufacturer to buy it back under California’s Lemon Law, the Song-Beverly Act. The manufacturer refused her buy-back request, willfully violating the
Court of Appeal reverses order denying settlement enforcement and interprets settlement under CCP 998 in favor of GMSR’s clients
GMSR’s clients leased a vehicle that proved to be a lemon and sued the manufacturer under California’s lemon law, the Song-Beverly Act. The manufacturer sent the clients a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 settlement offer, and they accepted. Under the settlement agreement, the manufacturer
GMSR secures another Court of Appeal win holding that manufacturers cannot offset their Song-Beverly Act damages by amounts the plaintiff receives for trading in a “lemon” vehicle
The Song-Beverly Act requires car manufacturers to promptly buy back defective cars without the consumer having to sue. Consumer advocates have long argued that manufacturers may not offset damages for amounts that plaintiffs are credited when they sell or trade in a defective car under
GMSR secures reinstatement of client’s fraudulent inducement claims
Owners of a Nissan Sentra sued Nissan, alleging that Nissan fraudulently induced them to buy their car by concealing the fact that the transmissions in the Sentras were defective. The trial court sustained Nissan’s demurrer based on the “economic loss rule,” which bars certain tort
GMSR secures split in authority before the California Supreme Court weighs in: Court of Appeal agrees with GMSR that manufacturers are not entitled to offsets for a car consumer’s resale of a “lemon”
The Song-Beverly Act requires car manufacturers to promptly buy back defective cars without the consumer having to sue. Consumer advocates have long argued that manufacturers may not offset damages for amounts that plaintiffs are credited when they sell or trade in a defective car under
Judgment Reversed: The Ninth Circuit Rules That GMSR’s Clients Did Not Abandon A Favorable Jury Verdict Merely By Arguing That Post-Judgment Proceedings Were Unnecessary
GMSR’s clients, two retirees who unwittingly leased a defective car, secured favorable jury verdicts on two claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act: one for breach of express warranty and another for breach of implied warranty. Recognizing that they were not entitled to a double
Court of Appeal Affirms Consumer’s Victory Against A Car Manufacturer For Fraud And California Lemon Law Violations
Ford advertised its Super Duty F-250 truck as the heavyweight champion of its class, with unprecedented hauling and towing capacities. Plaintiff saw those ads, and decided to buy one because he was planning to tow heavy loads into the mountains for extended camping trips. But
Court of Appeal grants petition for writ of mandate, vacating exclusion of key deposition evidence
In a published decision that disagrees with a sister court decision, Wahlgren v. Coleco Industries, Inv. (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 543 (Wahlgren), the Court of Appeal granted GMSR’s petition for writ of mandate and directed the trial court to vacate in limine orders that had excluded
Who We Serve
Whether on appeal, assisting trial counsel, or advising government officials contemplating legislative action, GMSR provides unique insight into the complex laws that impact public entities.
Where coverage may exist, GMSR represents insureds on appeal effectively and efficiently. Where it does not, the firm protects insurers’ right to deny claims.
GMSR offers corporate clients objective assessments on appeal, based on a deep understanding of the limitations and opportunities of appellate review.
The firm’s lawyers are team players, collaborating with trial counsel at any level from legal strategy to writing or editing trial court motions and appellate briefs.
GMSR vigorously advocates the rights of individual plaintiffs and defendants, in both state and federal appellate courts.
As part of GMSR’s long-standing commitment to social justice and equality, GMSR provides pro bono appellate services to individuals and to community organizations on issues of concern.
© 2024 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Los Angeles
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90048
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
San Francisco
50 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
p: (415) 315 1774
We welcome your inquiry. However, sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship. For that reason, you should not send us any kind of confidential information. Until we have agreed to represent you, we cannot be obligated to keep it confidential.