Douglas and Georgia S. v. FCA US LLC

San Luis Obispo County

Our clients Douglas and Georgia S. are a lovely elderly couple from Cambria, California that we represented with respect to their purchase of a 2014 Jeep Cherokee.  They purchased the vehicle hoping for years of peaceful and reliable enjoyment. They also looked forward to driving the Cherokee cross-country to celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary.  Unfortunately, prior to and during that trip, the vehicle presented with serious transmission and engine issues that the dealership was unable to fix. Douglas and Georgia became so frightened that they cut their trip short and returned straight home to the dealership.  They tried to resolve the vehicle’s problems, first, with their local dealership; but they were unable to fix the vehicle. Next, they attempted to resolve things directly with Chrysler, and Chrysler refused to do right by them. After our attorneys stepped in, we were able to obtain an excellent resolution of the case for them, including payment of all of their attorney’s fees and costs and a payment of nearly four-times what they paid for the vehicle.  

Chelsea F. v. Ford Motor Company

Ventura County

Our client, Chelsea F. resides in Westlake Village, California, and purchased her 2013 Ford Fiesta from Kemp Ford, hoping for a reliable car to get her to and from work every day.  Like countless other Ford Fiestas, Chelsea saw her vehicle develop serious and scary transmission issues, such as transmission grinding, shuddering, hesitating, and other such issues.  We represented Chelsea in Ventura County Superior Court in her claims against Ford Motor Company. Fortunately, after litigating the case, Ford Motor Company relented and offered to pay her over four times what she paid for the car.  Of course, Ford Motor Company also picked up the bill for all of her attorney’s fees and costs as part of the negotiated settlement. 

Roman & Beverly S. v. FCA US LLC

Sonoma County

Our clients, Roman and Beverly S. purchased their 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee from Lithia Chrysler Jeep Dodge back in April of 2014.  The vehicle exhibited a series of steering issues starting at 4,500 miles, which could never be corrected by Chrysler. They called Chrysler, told them about all the problems they were having with the car, and asked Chrysler to repurchase their vehicle.  However, Chrysler suggested that they instead go pound sand instead. When we stepped in, things changed and Chrysler offered to settle their case for over double what they had paid for the car and reimbursement of every dollar of their attorney’s fees and costs.  

Karen F. v. FCA US LLC

Kern County

Our client, Karen F. is a resident of Bakersfield and one of many clients we have had the pleasure of representing in Kern County, California.  She purchased her 2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee from Bakersfield Chrysler Jeep back in September of 2011. It didn’t take long for the vehicle to start exhibiting warranty issues such as the check engine light being illuminated, problems with the airbag systems, strange lights flashing on the dashboard, numerous recalls, and the vehicle not starting on occasion.  We represented Karen in Kern County Superior Court in her case against Chrysler. We were able to settle her case for nearly three times what she paid for the car. Of course, she did pay any of her legal bills or costs – Chrysler, as part of her settlement, paid all of those, too.  

Daniel L. v. FCA US LLC

Ventura County

Our client, Daniel L. resides in Simi Valley, California and purchased a 2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee in September of 2012.  The troubled vehicle exhibited a wide variety of issues including electrical issues, paint blemishes, recalls, engine leaks, problems with its windows, smoke coming out of the tailpipe, strange noises coming from the engine, engine misfires, and suspension issues.  While Chrysler initially denied Daniel any relief, we were able to negotiate a significant settlement with Chrysler that included reimbursement of all of his payments on the car, a significant civil penalty, and that Chrysler would pay him back for every dollar of attorney’s fees and costs incurred. 

Margaret and Henry C. v. FCA US LLC

Alameda County

Our clients, Margaret and Henry C. are a lovely elderly couple that reside in Oakland, California.  They purchased a 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee, brand new, and hoped that it would give them years of reliable performance.  While the car worked well for the first couple of years, the Grand Cherokee started to exhibit a series of problems such as oil leaks, shift shuddering, engine malfunctions, electrical issues, and not starting.  We represented Margaret and Henry in their case against Chrysler in Alameda County, California. We were able to settle the case when Chrysler agreed to pay them back what they paid for the car plus a significant civil penalty.  Naturally, Chrysler also paid Margaret and Henry’s attorney’s fees and costs incurred.  

Ligia A. v. FCA US LLC

Los Angeles County

Our client, Ligia A., a resident of Paramount, California, purchased a 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee from Champion Chrysler Jeep Dodge in May of 2013.  She hoped to enjoy the vehicle for years to come and take it on trips and rely on it as a daily driver. Instead, unfortunately, Ligia found that the Grand Cherokee exhibited a host of issues, such as check engine lights, numerous recalls, and engine fluid leaks. When she contacted Chrysler customer service directly for assistance with the car, they told her to take a hike.  We stepped in and assisted Ligia in her case against Chrysler in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Ultimately, Chrysler changed its tune and we settled her case with FCA agreeing to pay her back every dollar that she paid for her car, plus a significant civil penalty, plus all of her attorney’s fees and costs. 

Martin S. v. FCA US LLC

Tulare County

Our client, Martin S. resides in Tulare, California, and purchased a used 2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee from Merle Stone Chevrolet in 2013.  Almost immediately after buying the vehicle, Martin’s Grand Cherokee developed a host of issues including problems with the leather on the driver’s seat and driver’s seat trim.  Later, Martin’s issues with the vehicle got much more serious when it wouldn’t start in the mornings and exhibited a loss of power when driving. We represented Martin in Tulare County Superior Court and were able to negotiate a significant settlement for him.  In the end, FCA US agreed to pay him back every dollar he spent on the car and pay him a significant penalty. Of course, our work came at no charge to him – FCA US also paid every dollar of his attorney’s fees and costs. 

Luis C. v. Ford Motor Company

Riverside County

Our client, Luis C. purchased a troubled 2012 Ford Fiesta in August of 2011 from Gosch Ford Lincoln.  Luis’s Fiesta was one of the countless Fords plagued by the troubled Ford DPS6 transmission. Like many other Ford customers, he found that the vehicle exhibited transmission grinding, hesitations, harsh shifts, shuddering, and other transmission issues.  Despite taking it in for service over six times, Ford was unable to correct Luis’s Fiesta’s problems. We had the great pleasure of representing Luis C. in his case against Ford Motor Company in Riverside County Superior Court. Thanks to our zealous advocacy, Ford Motor Company ultimately settled the case for over five times what Luis C. had paid for the Fiesta.  Naturally, Ford Motor Company also paid every dollar of Luis C.’s attorney’s fees and costs.

John A. v. Kia Motors America

San Diego County

Our client, John A., resides in La Mesa, California, and purchased a 2012 Kia Forte.  Kia promised him the reliability and security of a 10-year, 100,000-mile warranty. Instead, John experienced a series of steering issues that had to be taken in to the shop no less than 10 times and still were not fixed.  John attempted to first resolve his issues directly with Kia, but they refused to even give him a callback. We represented John on his case in San Diego County Superior Court. Kia took John’s case to trial and a San Diego jury of 12 found in John’s favor, awarding him monetary damages equal to almost double what he paid for the vehicle.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.