Legal Victories on Behalf of Consumers

Mr. Amar defeated a motion for summary judgment attempting to dismiss a Motor Home case in Rice v. Newmar, a case handled at his previous law firm where he was a managing partner. The manufacturer argued several legal theories such as that it was only required to do warranty repairs and how long those repairs took didn't legally matter. The Judge denied the motion ruling that reasonableness in repair attempts and time out of service by reason of repair under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Federal Lemon Law) were issues for a jury to decide.

Mr. Amar prevailed in defending against a manufacturer Appeal in Georgiopolous v. GM, another case handled at his previous Firm. The Arizona Court of Appeals held that consumers in Arizona are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs if they settle an Arizona Lemon Law claim for cash-and-keep compensation even though that result is not a Lemon Law repurchase or replacement.  

Mr. Amar and the Amar Law Group Legal team defeated a motion to dismiss by the manufacturer in Powers v BMW arguing that it was entitled to enforce an arbitration clause in a lease agreement as a 3rd party beneficiary of the agreement and several other legal theories.  

Mr. Katz and the Amar Law Group team defeated a motion for summary judgment in Khoury v. Tesla arguing that separate additional State warranty law claims were required to be included when asserting a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Federal Lemon Law) claim. The Court agreed with Amar Law Group's position that no additional claims were required because the Federal Lemon Law already incorporates State warranty law.