Relying on the wrong filing deadline could end a California lemon law claim before a court considers the vehicle’s repair history. AB 1755 created a shorter, warranty-based deadline for manufacturers that choose its procedures, but it didn’t replace the earlier framework for every manufacturer.
The applicable timing rules depend first on the manufacturer involved. Before relying on a warranty expiration or repair date, consumers need to identify the correct deadline track.
AB 1755 Created Two Deadline Tracks
California now has different filing rules for certain Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act claims. AB 1755 added Chapter 12 to the California Code of Civil Procedure, with most provisions taking effect January 1, 2025.
For a manufacturer that elected the new procedures, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 871.21 requires a lawsuit to begin within one year after the applicable express warranty expires and no later than six years after the vehicle’s original delivery. An express warranty is the manufacturer’s written promise to repair or replace covered defects during a stated period. Both limits are subject to tolling, which pauses or extends a deadline under circumstances recognized by law.
Manufacturers that haven’t elected the AB 1755 procedures remain under the earlier Song-Beverly framework. That framework generally uses a four-year statute of limitations measured from when the consumer discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, that the vehicle couldn’t be repaired after a reasonable number of attempts. The manufacturer’s election therefore determines which timing analysis applies.
Determine Whether the New Deadline Applies
Start with the vehicle’s manufacturer, not its model year or the date of the first repair. Under SB 26, a manufacturer may elect to have the AB 1755 procedures govern its California vehicles. That election is irrevocable for five calendar years.
The California Department of Consumer Affairs Arbitration Certification Program maintains a public list of manufacturers that have made this election and must update it by December 15 each year. Checking the list is a useful first step, but it doesn’t replace a review of the dates and facts of an individual claim.
- Identify the manufacturer listed on your purchase or lease documents.
- Review the Department of Consumer Affairs list for the manufacturer’s election status.
- Save a copy of the list entry and note when you checked it.
- Keep records that establish the original delivery date and warranty terms.
A manufacturer’s current status identifies the rules that need attention. It doesn’t, by itself, establish the last permissible day to file.
Calculate Both Statutory Limits
For claims governed by Section 871.21, two dates work together. The warranty-based clock starts when the relevant express warranty expires, not when the owner realizes that repeated repairs are failing. The period measured from original vehicle delivery acts as an outside cap.
For example, assume the warranty expired on June 10, 2026, and the vehicle was originally delivered on March 1, 2024. The warranty-based filing date would be June 10, 2027, while the outside date would be March 1, 2030. On those facts, the earlier date controls, subject to any applicable tolling.
If the warranty instead remained in effect until October 2029, the outside cap would arrive before a full year had passed following expiration. The calculation must account for both limits rather than assuming that a longer warranty necessarily provides more time to sue.
Gather the documents that establish the relevant dates before relying on a calendar calculation:
- The purchase or lease agreement showing when the vehicle was originally delivered.
- The warranty booklet and any warranty extension documents.
- Repair orders showing each visit, concern, diagnosis, and period the vehicle remained at the dealership.
- Letters, emails, and other communications from the manufacturer.
Repair history matters both to the merits of a claim and to timing because time spent in repair may affect tolling. A deadline assessment should rely on the actual records, not just the date of a dashboard warning or the most recent repair.
Separate Filing Deadlines from Notice & Mediation
The deadline to commence a lawsuit is separate from the steps required before or during the case. Under the SB 26 cleanup provisions, effective July 1, 2025, a consumer seeking civil penalties must give the manufacturer written pre-suit notice at least 30 days before filing. Civil penalties are additional damages that may be available when a manufacturer willfully fails to comply with the law.
The notice requirement doesn’t mean a consumer should wait until the final month to act. The notice must be prepared and delivered properly while the filing deadline remains protected. Time spent in repair or completing the pre-suit notice process may extend an AB 1755 deadline, but the effect of tolling depends on the specific facts.
For cases governed by the new procedures, mediation begins after the manufacturer answers the lawsuit. This structured settlement process, led by a neutral person, must be scheduled within 90 days after the answer and conducted within 150 days after it. Discovery is restricted during the mandatory mediation period.
These procedures don’t extend the time to file automatically. They shape what happens before and after filing, which is why delaying the collection of documents can create avoidable pressure.
Review the Records Before Time Runs Out
A sound deadline review considers the manufacturer’s election status, warranty terms, original delivery, repair history, and any required pre-suit notice. The same records that document defective vehicles also help identify the governing framework and any potential tolling.
CA Lemon Law Firm exclusively handles California Lemon Law claims and offers free case evaluations without upfront cost. If persistent defects have left you unsure which deadline applies, contact our team at (818) 960-1550 to discuss the records affecting your claim.