LAW OFFICES OF RENÉ KORPER
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LEMON LAW ATTORNEYS

Appellate Wins of the Law Offices of René Korper

Sometimes a party is dissatisfied with the jury’s verdict against it, and files an appeal.  Whether it is the manufacturer unhappy that the jury did not accept its arguments, or the consumer whose rights were not upheld in the trial court, the Law Offices of René Korper is usually willing to continue representing its clients on appeal: 

The following is a list of some of the significant appellate successes of the Law Offices of René Korper:

Jiagbogu v. Mercedes-Benz:  Mr. Jiagbogu purchased a 12-cylinder Mercedes sedan, which developed various engine and transmission defects over time.  At trial, Mercedes argued that, because the vehicle had almost 100,000 miles on its odometer, Mr. Jiagbogu had obtained full use of the vehicle, and so was not entitled to a refund.  Alternately, Mercedes argued that it should get a $46,000 credit for Mr. Jiagbogu’s use of the vehicle.  The trial judge sided with Mr. Jiagbogu and rejected these arguments, and the jury decided in favor of Mr. Jiagbogu.  Mercedes appealed, and the appellate court not only rejected all of Mercedes’s arguments, but also issued a published decision so that future consumers would not have to face these arguments again from any warrantor.

RESULT:       Purchase price refunded, Mercedes lost on appeal.

Contreras v. Ford:  Ms. Contreras purchased a brand new Saleen Mustang that, shortly after purchase, began to backfire and experience significantly reduced performance.  The dealership advised Ms. Contreras to add a supercharger to the vehicle to alleviate these concerns.  After the supercharger was added, Ford claimed that the aftermarket supercharger had caused the problems with the vehicle, and that the installation of the supercharger voided Ford’s warranty.

The trial judge decided that some of Ms. Contreras’s problems were minor as a matter of law, and would not let the jury decide that part of her case.  The trial court also imposed a heavier burden of proof on Ms. Contreras than the law allows, and gave jury instructions – proposed by Ford – that misstated the law.  The jury returned a verdict against Ms. Contreras, but she appealed and the appellate court agreed with her.

RESULT:            Purchase price refunded after Defendants lost on appeal.

Interlandi v. Mercedes-Benz:  Mr. Interlandi purchased a Mercedes-Benz SL 500, which consistently pulled to the right.  Mercedes claimed that the defect was minor and did not warrant a repurchase of the vehicle.  The jury found that Mercedes had violated the Song-Beverly Act, but awarded $0 in damages.  Mr. Interlandi appealed, arguing that, if Mercedes violated the law, he was automatically entitled to a refund.  The appellate court agreed, and ordered a new trial only on the issue of the amount of his damages.

RESULT:            Purchase price refunded after Mercedes lost on appeal.

Eslamieh v. Coachman Industries:  Mr. Eslamieh purchased a defective Coachmen motor home, and the jury not only told Coachmen to refund his money but also imposed a $175,000.00 civil penalty.  Coachmen appealed only the civil penalty, arguing that the trial court should have instructed the jury that it could impose a civil penalty only if Coachmen had acted in bad faith, with malice, or with some other “deliberate evil purpose.”  The appellate court agreed with Mr. Eslamieh that the jury could impose a civil penalty on Coachmen because it found that Coachmen had intentionally refused to refund Mr. Eslamieh’s money despite knowing that it ought to do so.

RESULT:       Purchase price refunded, $175,000.00 civil penalty imposed, Coachmen lost on appeal.

Each case is different.  To find out whether you qualify for relief under the lemon law,
Call Us For A Free Professional Evaluation