Chris and Regina G. v. FCA US, LLC

Riverside, California

Our clients Chris and Regina G. are a young couple that reside in Palm Desert, California.  At the time of their case, Chris was a student at the police academy while his wife was a student at Cal State University San Bernardino.  Chris and Regina purchased a 2011 Dodge Nitro used from their local Toyota dealership.  Like other used cars, they were covered by California’s Lemon Law because the Nitro was still covered by Chrysler’s powertrain warranty.  The Nitro developed a series of engine issues, for which our clients took the vehicle four different times to Crystal Chrysler Jeep Dodge, in Cathedral City, CA.  In spite of the numerous repair presentations and the many days that their vehicle spent out of service, Dodge stubbornly refused to voluntarily repurchase their vehicle.  When our attorneys stepped in, they were able to negotiate a substantial settlement with Dodge equal to over two and a half times what our clients paid for the vehicle and payment of al of our clients’ attorney fees and costs by Chrysler.

Clayborne H. v. FCA US, LLC

Sacramento County

Our client, Clayborne H., is a retired contractor residing in El Dorado Hills, California.  He has purchased a 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee for approximately $40,000 in November of 2011.  Unfortunately, his vehicle developed a series of transmission issues, recalls, and electrical problems.  Frighteningly, at some point his vehicle actually caught on fire because of a widespread issue with the the electrical connection to the sun visor in 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokees.  Our attorneys were able to settle this client’s case for a substantial settlement equal to over three times his Lemon Law buyback.  Also, the court in Sacramento later ordered that Chrysler pay all of Clayborne’s attorney fees and costs on his behalf.

Danielle H. v. Ford Motor Company

Santa Barbara County

Our client, Danielle H. resides in Santa Barbara, California and loves her horses.  Danielle purchased a 2013 Ford F-350 for its towing capacity to help her tow her horse trailer and travel throughout the county.  Unfortunately, the vehicle developed a series of unfixable and inexplicable stalls, which stranded Danielle and her horses many times on the road.  Throughout her many presentations, Ford Motor Company was unable to fix the vehicle and refused to voluntarily repurchase it from her.  However, when we stepped in, we were able to negotiate a substantial settlement equal to over two and a half times what she paid for the truck.  Of course, as part of the deal, Ford Motor Company also paid all of her attorney fees and costs.

Mark L. v. Ford Motor Company

Stanislaus County

Our client, Mark L., was a firefighter in Atwater, California with Cal-Fire that purchased a 2006 Ford F-350 from Century Ford.  Unfortunately, Mark’s truck suffered a series of all too common Super Duty turbocharger problems, which resulted in numerous check engine lights, rough driving, and poor performance.  While he was forced to get rid of the truck early, Ford Motor Company refused to do right by its customer and voluntarily repurchase the truck.  When we stepped into the litigation, we were able to negotiate a substantial settlement for Mark, which was equal to over seven times his Lemon Law buy back.  Also, as part of Mark’s settlement, Ford Motor Company agreed that it would pay all of Mark’s attorney fees and costs.

Randall L. v. Ford Motor Company

Orange County

Our client, Randall L., runs a plaster business in Norwalk, California and purchased a 2007 new Ford F-350 flatbed for use in his business.  Unfortunately for Randy, like many other Ford super duty trucks from that era, his truck developed a series of very serious and unfixable issues with the truck’s engine management system.  Randy tried to resolve his issues with Ford direct and sought a buyback of his truck through the Better Business Bureau.  However, Ford refused to do right by its customer until we stepped in and were able to settle his case for over seven times a Lemon Law buy back.  Ford Motor company was also ordered to pay all of Randy’s attorney fees and costs as part of the settlement.

Andrew C. v. Hyundai Motor America

Los Angeles County

Our client, Andrew C., leased a Hyundai Genesis as a reward to himself after years of hard work.  Unfortunately, Andrew’s vehicle developed a constant and frustrating oil consumption problem wherein the vehicle would consume oil in between oil changes.  Hyundai repeatedly told Andrew there was nothing wrong with his car, but he was sorely disappointed that he could not enjoy the vehicle in the way it was intended because of the constant oil consumption.  We represented Andrew Choi at trial in Los Angeles Superior Court and were able to obtain a significant verdict in his favor, and the jury awarded him even more than what he had paid for the vehicle.  Also, the Court found later that Hyundai was responsible for paying Andrew’s attorney’s fees and costs.

Soon C. v. FCA US LLC

Los Angeles County

Our client, Soon C., was the owner of a 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee whose vehicle was plagued by serious electrical malfunctions.  Soon’s Grand Cherokee included FCA’s infamous Totally Integrated Power Module (“TIPM”), which caused a series of vehicle no-starts, spontaneous stalling, and a host of other electrical issues.  Prior to commencing a lawsuit, Soon attempted to resolve his case directly with FCA but was unable to do so because they wouldn’t give his case any serious consideration.  We represented Soon in Los Angeles County Superior Court and were able to resolve his case for nearly three times what he paid for the vehicle.  Of course, we were also able to obtain payment of all our attorney’s fees and costs from Chrysler.

Olga C. v. FCA US LLC

Los Angeles County

Our client, Olga C., is a resident of Palmdale, California and purchased a 2014 Fiat 500 L from Fiat Los Angeles for approximately $43,000.  Unfortunately, after only 13,000 miles, the vehicle developed a series of serious and troubling transmission and engine issues.  Olga attempted to resolve her problems directly with Fiat but was unable to do so because they refused to follow the law, do right by their customer, and repurchase her vehicle.  When we became involved in her matter, we were able to settle the case for a significant sum, which included repayment of all of her payments, the payment of a significant civil penalty by Fiat to Olga, and of course, FCA paid all of Olga’s lawyer bills and costs as well.

Angela B. v. Ford Motor Company

Los Angeles County

Our client, Angela B., was one of thousands of owners of 2012 Ford Focuses who encountered irreparable transmission issues with respect to her vehicle.  Angela’s Focus was purchased used from Cerritos Ford with about 35,000 miles on it.  Immediately thereafter, it was taken in for a succession of six separate presentations for the transmission, which Ford Motor Company was unable to conform to warranty.  We were able to settle Angela’s case for a significant sum, including every penny she paid for the car, the civil penalty equal to double what she paid for the car, and of course, Ford Motor Company paid all of Angela’s lawyers bills, as well.

Ron B. v. FCA US LLC

San Bernardino County

Our client, Ron B., is a realtor from Upland, California, who purchased a 2011 Dodge Durango from Jeep Chrysler Dodge of Ontario.  Ron purchased the vehicle in June of 2011 and hoped for years of reliable and pleasurable driving around the Inland Empire.  However, not long after her bought the Durango, it developed electronic system issues and engine issues.  Ron’s problems with the vehicle went from bad to much worse after about 40,000 miles when the vehicle began intermittently not starting and stalling while being driven.  CCA’s attorneys attributed the stalling and no-starts to FCA’s notoriously defective Totally Integrated Power Module (or “TIPM”).  FCA’s attorneys attempted to strong arm Ron and refused to settle his case for a reasonable sum.  However, we tried his case before a jury of twelve in San Bernardino County Superior Court.  The jury found that the vehicle was defective, awarded Ron all of his money back and awarded him a civil penalty equal to double what he paid for the car.  Additionally, the San Bernardino jury found FCA had committed fraudulent concealment with respect to certain defects in his vehicle.  Later, the Court ordered that FCA pay for all of Ron’s attorney’s fees and costs.