A proposed law that could cut down on faulty vehicle litigation was negotiated for six months by Inland Empire torts attorney Greg Rizio.
“We believe this bill is a fix on abuses of both sides,” said Rizio by phone Sept. 4.
If signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, AB 1755 would create early paths to manufacturer buybacks of faulty vehicles, while also increasing the burden to bring a case. Rizio said it would help unclog courts by reducing the amount of Lemon Law cases filed.
California Lemon Law
The California Lemon Law protects you when your vehicle is defective and cannot be repaired after a “reasonable” number of attempts. Under the Lemon Law, the manufacturer may be required to buy back or replace your vehicle.
The Lemon Law applies to most new vehicles purchased or leased in California that are still under a manufacturer’s new-vehicle warranty.
The Lemon Law also applies to used vehicles when they are still under a manufacturer’s new car warranty. Any remaining time left on the warranty protects the car’s new owner.
For more details, click here.
Currently, to bring a lemon law case in California, a plaintiff must call the manufacturer to ask for a buyback. Rizio said that leaves room for people to claim they called, in good faith.
How it would work
AB 1755 would replace that with a requirement to email the manufacturer, creating a written record with automatic proof of the negotiation. Following the email, the manufacturer would have 60 days to buy back the car.
If the manufacturer does not buy back the car, and it is later found to be a lemon, they would be fined $50 for each day between the 60-day buyback limit and the settlement.
If the consumer does not comply in good faith, and delays the buyback, the manufacturer would not be fined $50 each day.
“That’s the point of it—to get the consumer what they paid for, a good car, and to get the bad cars off the road,” Rizio said.
AB 1755 would also implement a statute of limitations: a car bought more than six years ago cannot be claimed as a lemon, and neither can a car no longer owned by the plaintiff. Currently, some litigants claim Lemon Law cases for cars they no longer own, Rizio said.
It also truncates the discovery process by requiring both the plaintiff and defendant to turn over all relevant documents within 60 days of the case being filed, submit to a deposition within 120 days of the case filing, and have a mediation within 150 days.
Developing the bill
“Sitting on a bunch of boards with judges and lawyers, I can tell you that all of us know that Lemon Law discovery filings are killing the consumers’ rights to get trial dates, and to get justice,” Rizio told the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Aug. 26.
Rizio said he negotiated the law with the help of nine Lemon Law attorneys who chose to have their identity confidential in order to avoid retaliation from others. He also negotiated with automobile manufacturers.
Lobbyist Mike Belote, representing General Motors, argued for the law to be adopted on Aug. 26.
“There is no way that a consumer should be forced to wait two or three years for relief on a Lemon Law claim. These are people who need to get to work and get to school,” Belote said.
“There is no reason why there should be hundreds of discovery requests,” Belote said.
The Consumer Attorneys of California’s negotiation team included Rizio, incoming CAOC President Geoff Wells, CAOC CEO Nancy Drabble and CAOC attorney and lobbyist Saveena Takar.
‘Urgency’
The law was sped through the legislature in the last week of the legislative year. It was a gut and amend bill, meaning a bill originally introduced to do something completely different, but agreed by the author to be changed.
The bill was pushed through to avoid a ballot initiative between the CAOC and the Civil Justice Association of California, said Assemblymember Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale).
“The reason for the urgency in introducing this bill now, instead of waiting until next legislative session, is that the deal includes an agreement for mutual moratorium between the Consumer Attorneys (of California) and the Civil Justice Association of California on filing a state or local ballot initiative,” Lackey told the Assembly.
“If the bill does not go through, the deal is off and our chance at reform will have been lost, likely for many years to come,” Lackey continued.
The original bill was a joint bill introduced by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) and Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana).
“Since the end of the pandemic era restrictions on court hearings, the number of Lemon Law related lawsuits has skyrocketed. In fact, judges report that in L.A. County, Lemon Law cases now represent 10% of all civil filings in the county,” Kalra said before the Assembly Aug. 31. “Nine years ago, there were about 4,000 a year. This year, it is expected to be 30,000 Lemon Law cases.”
It passed the Senate Aug. 29 with 31 ayes to four noes, with five votes not recorded. Locally, Sens. Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh (R-Yucaipa) and Josh Newman (D-Fullerton) did not vote. The remaining Inland Empire representatives voted yes.
It passed the Assembly Aug. 31 with 55 ayes to four noes, with 20 votes not recorded.
Representatives of Tesla, Toyota, Honda, BMW and Kia stated opposition to the bill.
