Skip to main content

California Lemon Law Verdict: 2021 Jeep Wrangler Dispute

California Lemon Law Verdict: 2021 Jeep Wrangler Dispute

SC

Sohini Chakraborty

Sohini Chakraborty is a lawyer, with over two years of experience in legal research and analysis. She specializes in working closely with expert witnesses, offering critical support in preparing legal research and detailed case studies.

4 min read
California Lemon Law Verdict: 2021 Jeep Wrangler Dispute

Case Background

Alejandro Andrade, a resident of California, entered into a warranty contract with FCA US LLC on December 1, 2021. This agreement covered a new 2021 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited and included several protections, such as a bumper-to-bumper warranty and a powertrain warranty. Shortly after he started driving the vehicle, serious engine defects and other mechanical nonconformities began to surface. These issues persisted despite Andrade's diligent efforts to have the vehicle repaired at authorized service centers.

Cause

The lawsuit originated from the vehicle’s failure to operate as promised under its express and implied warranties. Andrade alleged that the engine defects were significant enough to impair the safety and use of the Jeep. He contended that FCA US LLC failed in its legal duty to either fix the vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts or promptly offer a repurchase or replacement.

Injury

Andrade suffered financial and personal losses because the vehicle he leased was not fit for its ordinary purpose. He claimed the defects turned a high-value purchase into something virtually worthless. Beyond the mechanical failures, he argued that the manufacturer's refusal to honor its warranty obligations caused him ongoing incidental and consequential damages.

Damages Sought

Andrade asked the Court for full restitution of the purchase price, minus an allowance for the miles he drove before the first repair attempt. He also sought civil penalties amounting to twice his actual damages, arguing that FCA's failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act was willful. Additionally, his request included compensation for incidental expenses, prejudgment interest, and the payment of his legal fees.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The case moved through the Superior Court of California in San Bernardino County. Throughout the proceedings, the legal teams debated whether the Jeep truly met the standards of "merchantability" and if the manufacturer had received a fair chance to fix the problems.

Plaintiff(s): Alejandro Andrade

  • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Tionna Dolin | Sanam Vaziri of Strategic Legal Practices, APC

Defendant(s): FCA US LLC | Victorville Motors Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram Fiat

  • Counsel for Defendant(s): Spencer P. Hugret | Eric D. Sentlinger | Sarah Carlson Lambert | Darren Nana Yaw Adjei

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Claims

Andrade’s attorneys argued that the Jeep Wrangler was defective from the start and that the manufacturer broke its promise to provide a reliable vehicle. They emphasized that the law requires a manufacturer to step up when a car cannot be fixed, yet FCA allegedly "kept the consumer in the dark" about their rights regarding emissions warranties and other statutory protections.

Defense

FCA US LLC denied the allegations and defended its actions, asserting that it had met its obligations. The defense team argued that any issues Andrade experienced did not meet the legal threshold for a "lemon" law buyback and that the company should not be held liable for civil penalties or the total rescission of the contract.

Jury Verdict

On January 20, 2026, the jury reached a decision following the trial in Department S22. They focused on the claim regarding the Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability.

The jury first considered whether the 2021 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited was of the same quality as those generally accepted in the trade. They checked the box for "Yes," finding that the vehicle met industry standards at the time of the lease.

Next, the jurors addressed whether the vehicle was fit for the ordinary purposes for which vehicles are used. Again, the jury answered "Yes," indicating they believed the Jeep was functional for daily driving. Because they found the vehicle fit and of acceptable quality, the jury followed the instructions on the verdict form to stop their deliberations. Consequently, the jury did not award any damages or restitution to Alejandro Andrade, effectively ruling in favor of FCA US LLC on these specific claims.

Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]

About the Author

SC

Sohini Chakraborty

Sohini Chakraborty is a lawyer, with over two years of experience in legal research and analysis. She specializes in working closely with expert witnesses, offering critical support in preparing legal research and detailed case studies.