If your new or used motorcycle in South San Francisco repeatedly fails to perform despite repairs, California’s lemon law protections may apply. Law Republic APC helps riders in San Mateo County understand when a motorcycle qualifies and what remedies are available under state law. This page explains how the law works locally, what documentation to gather, and how contact with manufacturers or dealers typically proceeds. Our firm focuses on clear client communication and practical next steps so you can decide whether to pursue a refund, replacement, or another resolution without unnecessary delay.
Motorcycle owners in South San Francisco often face uncertainty after repeated breakdowns or safety problems. The lemon law process can feel technical, but knowing your rights can make a decisive difference in securing a fair outcome. California law sets timelines and conditions for relief, and keeping repair records, dealership contacts, and written communications can strengthen a claim. This guide provides a local overview of the steps many riders take, what to expect when raising a claim with a manufacturer, and how local circumstances in South San Francisco may affect timing and available remedies.
Seeking resolution under California’s motorcycle lemon law can save riders from ongoing safety risks and unexpected repair costs. A clear, organized claim can lead to a vehicle repurchase, replacement, or a cash settlement that reflects diminished value. For South San Francisco motorcycle owners, pursuing a claim also puts pressure on manufacturers to address pattern defects more responsibly. Knowing the benefits of legal action helps you make an informed decision about whether to negotiate directly with a dealer, seek a formal buyback, or file for other remedies available under state law. Timely action helps preserve options and evidence.
Law Republic APC represents clients across California, including South San Francisco and San Mateo County, in lemon law matters involving motorcycles and other vehicles. Our approach emphasizes strong documentation, strategic communication with manufacturers, and protecting clients’ rights through negotiation or litigation when needed. We focus on practical results for riders who have spent time and money on repeated repairs without durable resolution. If you are dealing with recurring mechanical or safety issues, we can review your situation, explain likely outcomes under state law, and recommend next steps tailored to your priorities and timeline.
California’s lemon law provides remedies for consumers whose new or certified pre-owned motorcycles have substantial defects that remain unresolved after reasonable repair attempts. The law looks at the frequency and nature of repairs, whether the defect affects safety or value, and the manufacturer’s opportunities to cure the problem. In South San Francisco, local dealerships and service centers play a role in repair records and timelines, so maintaining a clear paper trail is essential. Understanding these requirements helps motorcyclists evaluate whether a formal claim is appropriate and what evidence will support a favorable outcome.
The lemon law process often begins with thorough documentation of repair attempts, dealership communications, and incident details. California statutes define what constitutes a reasonable number of repair attempts and set deadlines for filing claims or seeking arbitration. For motorcycle owners in South San Francisco, collecting service invoices, work orders, and communication logs helps preserve claims for refunds or replacements. Knowing how state law interacts with manufacturer policies and local repair practices enables riders to pursue the most effective resolution for persistent mechanical or electrical failures that impair use or safety.
A motorcycle lemon claim alleges that the vehicle suffers from a defect or condition covered by warranty that substantially impairs its use, value, or safety and that the manufacturer or dealer could not repair the problem after a reasonable number of attempts. California law assesses the defect’s severity, the number of repair efforts, and whether the issue persisted within a statutory period. Riders in South San Francisco should understand how warranty terms, repair history, and communication with the manufacturer factor into a claim. Clear records and prompt reporting strengthen the case and make the legal path forward more navigable.
A successful lemon law claim generally depends on documented repair attempts, proof of timely notification to the manufacturer, and confirmation that the defect affects safety or substantially reduces the motorcycle’s value. Common processes include demand letters to the manufacturer, negotiation for buyback or replacement, and, if necessary, arbitration or litigation. For South San Francisco riders, coordinating local repair records with manufacturer communications is an early priority. Understanding these steps helps riders anticipate timelines, potential outcomes, and how best to preserve evidence for a favorable resolution.
Familiarity with core terms helps riders navigate a motorcycle lemon law matter. Definitions such as warranty, substantial impairment, reasonable repair attempts, manufacturer buyback, and arbitration will frequently arise when you pursue a claim. Knowing how these concepts apply in California and how local repair vendors document work in South San Francisco makes it easier to assess the strength of a claim. This glossary provides plain-language explanations so you can understand notices, legal correspondence, and settlement options without confusion.
A warranty is a written promise from the manufacturer or dealer that certain repairs or services will be provided within a set time or mileage period. Warranties often cover defects in materials or workmanship and form the baseline for a lemon law claim when covered defects persist. For South San Francisco motorcycle owners, warranty terms determine the manufacturer’s obligations and help define the timeframe in which repair attempts must occur. Keep original warranty documents and any dealer-supplied service records to demonstrate coverage during the claim process.
Substantial impairment refers to a defect that meaningfully affects the motorcycle’s use, value, or safety. A problem that prevents safe operation, reduces resale value, or causes frequent breakdowns may qualify as substantial impairment. In South San Francisco, conditions such as persistent braking failures, recurring engine stalls, or electrical issues that compromise roadworthiness are often considered serious. The determination considers the nature of the defect and its practical effect on daily use or rider safety, supported by repair history and expert assessment when needed.
Reasonable repair attempts describe the number and timing of visits to an authorized dealer or service center to fix a recurring defect. California law does not adopt a rigid numerical standard for all cases, but repeated attempts within warranty often strengthen a claim. For South San Francisco riders, maintaining clear records of each service visit, work order, and written communication shows the manufacturer was given a fair opportunity to fix the issue. Courts and arbitrators will evaluate these details when determining whether a claim meets statutory thresholds.
Manufacturer buyback refers to the manufacturer repurchasing the motorcycle, often with a refund of the purchase price minus a mileage offset, while replacement means providing a comparable new vehicle. Both remedies are potential outcomes in a successful lemon law claim under California law. For South San Francisco riders, negotiations with the manufacturer typically address the buyback amount, any offsets, and responsibility for incidental expenses. Settlement terms can vary, so careful review of offers and documentation of losses enhances the likelihood of a fair resolution.
Motorcycle owners in South San Francisco may choose different paths depending on the severity of problems and desired outcome. Some riders begin with direct negotiation with a dealer or manufacturer, seeking repairs, goodwill repairs, or partial refunds. Others pursue a formal lemon law claim when defects persist and safety or value is substantially affected. Comparing these options involves weighing the evidence, time to resolution, and potential remedies. Understanding the likely benefits and trade-offs of a limited approach versus a comprehensive claim helps riders select the most effective path for their circumstances.
A limited approach can be appropriate when defects are minor, non-safety related, and quickly resolved by a dealership or authorized service center. If a component issue is fixed in a single visit and does not reoccur, pursuing formal legal remedies may not be necessary. In South San Francisco, riders often choose this path for cosmetic defects or isolated equipment failures that dealerships promptly correct under warranty. Keeping detailed repair invoices, however, remains important in case the problem returns and a more formal lemon law claim becomes appropriate.
A limited approach may succeed when the manufacturer acknowledges the defect and promptly offers a satisfactory remedy, such as a free repair or replacement part. If the repair resolves the issue and the remedy is documented, a rider can avoid the time and expense of a formal claim. In South San Francisco, transparent communication with the dealer and written confirmation of repairs or concessions help ensure durable results. Retaining all correspondence and invoices provides a record if further problems arise and a stronger claim later becomes necessary.
When a motorcycle continues to experience defects that impair safety or make the vehicle unreliable despite repeated repairs, pursuing a comprehensive lemon law claim becomes a reasonable option. Persistent braking problems, engine failures, or drivability issues that recur after multiple repair attempts often justify formal action under California law. South San Francisco riders facing these ongoing concerns may need the stronger remedies available through manufacturer buyback, replacement, or a negotiated settlement that addresses diminished value and related losses.
A comprehensive claim is often appropriate when multiple repair attempts have not corrected the defect and the manufacturer has failed to provide a satisfactory cure. Documented history of unsuccessful repairs, delays, or denials of responsibility strengthens the case for a refund or replacement under California’s lemon law. For South San Francisco motorcyclists, organizing service records and written communications helps demonstrate the pattern of failure and the manufacturer’s inability to remedy the problem within warranty coverage or a reasonable timeframe.
Pursuing a full lemon law claim can provide stronger remedies than informal negotiation, including potential buyback, replacement, or monetary compensation for diminished value. A comprehensive approach also creates a formal record that the manufacturer had notice and opportunity to cure, which can be persuasive in arbitration or court. For South San Francisco riders, these remedies address recurring safety concerns and financial losses from frequent repairs, helping restore predictable transportation and peace of mind. Strategic documentation and timely action increase the likelihood of a favorable resolution.
Additional benefits include reimbursement for certain incidental costs, recovery of attorney fees in appropriate cases, and closure when ongoing repairs have drained time and resources. The formal process may encourage manufacturers to resolve claims more fairly and to correct systemic issues affecting other riders. South San Francisco residents who document repair history, maintain open communication with service centers, and pursue a structured claim are often better positioned to recover meaningful relief and move past persistent mechanical problems.
One primary advantage of a full lemon law claim is the potential for the manufacturer to repurchase the motorcycle or provide a replacement of comparable value. A buyback typically refunds the purchase price minus a reasonable offset for use, while replacement offers a comparable vehicle. For South San Francisco riders, these outcomes can restore reliable transportation and avoid further out-of-pocket repairs. Achieving buyback or replacement often requires clear repair documentation and persistence through negotiation or formal dispute resolution procedures.
Beyond buyback or replacement, a comprehensive claim may enable recovery of incidental costs such as towing, rental expenses, and some repair bills, depending on the circumstances and settlement terms. California law also provides avenues for fee recovery when claims succeed. For motorcycle owners in South San Francisco, pursuing these remedies can help offset the financial burden of a defective vehicle and provide a cleaner break from ongoing mechanical issues. Preparing strong documentation and following statutory procedures increases the chances of a full recovery.
Maintaining complete and organized repair records is one of the most important steps a South San Francisco rider can take when a motorcycle has recurring problems. Keep invoices, work orders, dates of service, technician notes, and any correspondence with dealers or the manufacturer. Photographs or videos of defects can supplement the written record. A clear file helps show the pattern of repairs and supports claims about frequency and persistence of faults. This documentation is often the foundation of successful communication with a manufacturer or a formal claim.
Timely action is important under California’s lemon law. Understand warranty timelines and state filing deadlines, and address defects promptly with the dealer so the manufacturer has a clear opportunity to repair. Delays in reporting or allowing extended periods without service can complicate a claim. South San Francisco riders should act as soon as a recurring problem appears, collect documentation, and seek guidance if a satisfactory repair pattern does not emerge. Prompt steps preserve options and keep paths to resolution open.
Choosing to pursue a lemon law claim can address ongoing safety concerns, mitigate continued repair costs, and recover financial losses tied to a defective motorcycle. If frequent repairs interrupt daily use or the defect poses a risk on the road, lemon law remedies provide structured relief that informal repairs may not. South San Francisco riders who have endured repeated visits to service centers without durable fixes may find that legal remedies lead to a buyback, replacement, or compensation. A careful evaluation of repair history and warranty coverage helps determine whether a claim is warranted.
Another reason to consider formal action is to avoid further time and expense on an unreliable vehicle. Ongoing mechanical problems reduce resale value and can cause uncertainty about long-term safety and performance. Pursuing a lemon law resolution can provide closure and financial relief that returns control to the owner. For residents of South San Francisco, having a clear path to settle disputes with manufacturers can prevent repeated inconveniences and enable a quicker move toward dependable transportation options.
Common triggers for a lemon law claim include repeated engine failures, braking or steering defects, electrical malfunctions, and other conditions that affect safe operation or significantly reduce the motorcycle’s value. Persistent problems that continue after multiple repair attempts often prompt riders to seek formal remedies. In South San Francisco, patterns of repeated service visits, inconsistency in repairs, and manufacturer denials of responsibility are recurring reasons why owners escalate to lemon law claims. Documenting the pattern helps demonstrate that the issue persists despite opportunities to cure.
Recurring mechanical failures, such as engine stalling, transmission issues, or frequent overheating, often justify escalating to a lemon law claim when dealership repairs do not provide a lasting solution. These kinds of problems can make the motorcycle unreliable and unsafe for day-to-day travel. South San Francisco riders facing repeated mechanical breakdowns should collect detailed repair records and communicate concerns to the manufacturer in writing. If problems continue after reasonable repair attempts, formal remedies under California law may become appropriate.
Persistent safety-system defects, like braking failures, ABS malfunctions, or steering irregularities, are serious and often lead riders to pursue lemon law claims when repairs do not correct the danger. Safety issues compromise the rider’s well-being and increase the urgency of resolving the defect permanently. Residents of South San Francisco experiencing these types of recurring safety problems should report them immediately, keep a careful record of repairs and communications, and consider formal remedies if the manufacturer cannot provide a reliable solution.
Electrical or electronic malfunctions—such as repeated failures of ignition systems, lighting, or onboard controls—can render a motorcycle unreliable and diminish its market value. When such problems persist despite multiple repair attempts, riders often pursue lemon law remedies to obtain a buyback or replacement. For South San Francisco owners, compiling a timeline of failures and service visits helps show the persistence and impact of the defect, making it easier to present a strong claim under California’s statutory protections.
If your motorcycle in South San Francisco shows recurring defects or safety concerns that dealer repairs have not resolved, Law Republic APC can review your situation and explain potential options under California law. We focus on helping riders understand documentation needs, likely remedies, and practical next steps. Contacting us early preserves evidence and clarifies timelines for possible claims. Our goal is to provide straightforward guidance so you can decide whether to seek a buyback, replacement, or compensation and move forward with reliable transportation.
Law Republic APC represents vehicle owners across California and offers focused advocacy for motorcycle lemon law matters in South San Francisco and San Mateo County. Our approach centers on documenting the repair history thoroughly, communicating strategically with manufacturers, and pursuing remedies that meet each client’s goals. We prioritize clear explanations of options and likely outcomes so riders can make informed decisions. When problems persist and warranties have not produced a lasting cure, we work to secure appropriate relief through negotiation or formal dispute resolution.
We assist clients with organizing service records, drafting demand letters, and evaluating manufacturer responses to determine the most effective course of action. For South San Francisco riders, prompt documentation and attention to deadlines are essential, and we help preserve critical evidence and navigate procedural requirements. Our focus is achieving meaningful outcomes, whether that means negotiating a buyback, replacement, or fair settlement that compensates for diminished value and related costs tied to the defective motorcycle.
Clients often appreciate our direct communication and practical guidance throughout the claim process. We explain potential remedies under California law and outline realistic expectations for timing and outcomes. If a dispute moves to arbitration or court, we prepare thoroughly to present the repair history and the impact of the defects. For residents of South San Francisco, having a clear plan and responsive advocacy helps reduce stress and supports a path toward resolution and reliable transportation.
Our process begins with a careful review of your repair history, warranty documents, and any communications with the dealer or manufacturer. We identify whether the defect and the repair pattern meet California’s standards for a lemon law claim and recommend initial steps such as sending a demand letter or pursuing goodwill repairs when appropriate. If a formal claim is needed, we continue with negotiation, arbitration, or litigation as required. Throughout, we keep clients in South San Francisco informed about timelines, likely outcomes, and practical next steps to preserve their rights.
The first formal step involves collecting and reviewing all relevant documents, including purchase contracts, warranty information, repair invoices, and communications with service centers and manufacturers. We build a chronological file that highlights repair frequency, technician diagnoses, and any unresolved safety issues. For South San Francisco riders, this organization clarifies whether the defect persists within warranty and establishes the foundation for negotiation. Accurate documentation at intake improves the chances of a timely and effective resolution.
Collecting repair invoices, service orders, and written correspondence is essential to show the pattern of defects and the manufacturer’s opportunity to cure them. Photographs, videos, and notes from phone calls can supplement official documents. For South San Francisco clients, securing records from local dealerships and authorized service centers helps build a persuasive timeline of repair attempts. This documentation is central to demonstrating that the defect substantially impairs the motorcycle and that reasonable steps were taken to secure a repair.
After reviewing records, we assess whether the facts meet statutory thresholds and recommend a strategy tailored to your priorities, whether that involves negotiation for buyback or replacement, pursuing arbitration, or filing suit. For many South San Francisco riders, the decision balances potential outcomes, likely timelines, and the strength of documentation. We explain the advantages and trade-offs of each path and prepare necessary demand letters and evidence to present the claim effectively to the manufacturer or dispute resolution forum.
The next phase commonly involves sending a formal demand to the manufacturer outlining the defects, repair history, and requested remedy, such as repurchase or replacement. Negotiation aims to resolve the matter without formal hearing, although offers and counteroffers may be exchanged. For South San Francisco motorcycle owners, a well-drafted demand backed by clear records often prompts manufacturers to consider settlement. If negotiations stall, we prepare to escalate the matter to arbitration or court while continuing to seek an acceptable resolution.
A persuasive demand letter summarizes the defect, repair chronology, and the impact on safety and value, and it requests a specified remedy. Supporting documents are assembled to show repair frequency and manufacturer notice. For South San Francisco clients, the demand aims to prompt a fair solution while preserving the option to pursue formal remedies if needed. Clear presentation of evidence and a reasonable but firm request increase the chance of a negotiated outcome that avoids protracted dispute resolution.
Negotiations may involve offers to repurchase with mileage offsets, replacement vehicles, or monetary compensation for diminished value and related expenses. Evaluating offers requires balancing immediacy of relief against potential long-term value. For riders in South San Francisco, our role is to analyze any proposals carefully, explain implications, and seek terms that address both financial and practical concerns. If the manufacturer refuses to settle fairly, the case can be moved to arbitration or litigation to pursue statutory remedies.
If negotiation does not yield an acceptable result, the claim may proceed to arbitration or court. Arbitration is often faster and cost-effective, while a court case may be appropriate in select situations. Preparing for formal proceedings requires compiling persuasive evidence, witness statements, and expert input about the defect’s impact. For South San Francisco clients, arbitration or litigation seeks to secure the remedies allowed under California law, and our team handles filings, hearings, and settlement discussions with an emphasis on achieving a timely resolution.
Preparation involves organizing repair documentation, witness statements from technicians, and any independent inspections that demonstrate persistent defects. Visual evidence such as photos and repair invoices reinforces the claim. For South San Francisco riders, assembling a coherent narrative about the motorcycle’s performance issues and the steps taken to resolve them is essential to persuading an arbitrator or judge. Thorough preparation improves the likelihood of obtaining buyback, replacement, or monetary relief under the statute.
During hearings or trial, the focus is on demonstrating the defect’s persistence and the manufacturer’s failure to correct it within a reasonable time. Presentation includes documentation, testimony, and legal argument about statutory remedies. For South San Francisco clients, the goal is a clear resolution that compensates for repairs, diminished value, and other recoverable losses. After a decision or settlement, we assist with implementing the remedy, such as coordinating buyback logistics or confirming replacement vehicle details.
Under California law, a motorcycle may qualify as a lemon when it has a substantial defect covered by warranty that impairs its use, value, or safety and the defect remains after a reasonable number of repair attempts. Factors include the severity of the defect, how often repairs were attempted, and whether the manufacturer was given a fair chance to correct the issue under warranty. For South San Francisco riders, consistent repair records and evidence of ongoing problems strengthen a claim and help show the defect’s practical impact on daily use. Documentation such as repair orders, service invoices, and written communications with dealers or the manufacturer is crucial. Timely reporting of defects and keeping a clear timeline of repair attempts will make it easier to demonstrate that the motorcycle qualifies for lemon law relief. If you have persistent issues, early review of your records can clarify whether a lemon law claim is appropriate and what remedies might be sought.
California does not rely on a single numerical rule for all lemon law cases, but repeated repair attempts within warranty that fail to fix the same substantial defect often support a claim. Some cases involve a specific number of attempts for certain types of defects, while others consider the totality of the repair history. For South San Francisco riders, the pattern and timing of service visits matter more than a fixed count, especially when the defect affects safety or consistent performance. Collecting all service invoices and notes from each visit is important for showing that the manufacturer had multiple opportunities to repair the issue. Clear, chronological documentation makes it easier to argue that repair attempts were reasonable and unsuccessful and to pursue remedies such as buyback or replacement under state law.
If a motorcycle is found to be a lemon under California law, common remedies include manufacturer buyback, replacement with a comparable vehicle, and monetary compensation for diminished value and certain incidental costs. Buyback arrangements usually factor in a mileage offset to account for vehicle use prior to the claim. For South San Francisco riders, outcomes depend on the defect’s severity, repair history, and negotiation or arbitration results with the manufacturer. Occasionally, claims settle through negotiated monetary agreements that address repair expenses, rental costs, and loss of value. The specific remedy will be tailored to the facts of the case and the rider’s objectives, and careful documentation of expenses and repair history helps secure the most complete relief available under the statute.
Not always. Many lemon law matters resolve through negotiation or arbitration rather than a full court trial. Arbitration can be faster and more cost-effective, and some manufacturers participate in arbitration programs that resolve disputes without litigation. For South San Francisco owners, pursuing negotiation first is common, especially when documentation clearly shows persistent defects and the manufacturer is willing to discuss buyback or replacement. If negotiation and arbitration do not produce a fair outcome, filing a lawsuit may be necessary to pursue statutory remedies. The choice between arbitration and court depends on case specifics, timing, and the rider’s goals. Early legal review helps determine the most effective forum and strategy for achieving a satisfactory resolution.
Document issues by saving all repair invoices, work orders, and written communications with the dealer and manufacturer. Note dates of service, descriptions of the problem, technician observations, and repair outcomes. Photographs and videos of the defect or resulting damage can strengthen your file. For South San Francisco riders, creating a chronological record that ties symptoms to service actions provides persuasive evidence of recurrence and impact. Also preserve records of any related expenses such as towing, rental vehicles, or out-of-pocket repairs that were warranted. Written summaries of phone calls with names and dates add helpful context. This thorough documentation supports demands for buyback, replacement, or compensation and helps streamline negotiation or formal dispute resolution.
Yes, manufacturer buybacks under California law commonly include a mileage offset to account for vehicle use prior to the claim. The offset reduces the refund amount based on the motorcycle’s mileage at the time of repurchase, and formulas for calculating the offset are guided by statute. For South San Francisco riders, understanding how the offset is computed helps in evaluating whether a buyback offer is fair and what additional compensation might be sought. It is important to consider other recoverable costs, such as repairs and incidental expenses, when assessing a buyback offer. Negotiation can sometimes improve the overall terms, and a well-supported claim with clear documentation may lead to a more favorable settlement that addresses both the offset and out-of-pocket losses.
You may be able to pursue a lemon law claim for a used motorcycle depending on the nature of the sale and whether a manufacturer or dealer warranty applies. Certified pre-owned vehicles often carry specific warranty protections that can trigger lemon law remedies if covered defects persist. Private sales without any warranty generally provide fewer options under the lemon law, but the details of the purchase and any implied or express warranties can affect available remedies. For South San Francisco buyers, reviewing the sale and warranty terms is an early step in assessing options. A careful review of the purchase agreement, warranty documents, and repair history helps determine whether a manufacturer or dealer obligation exists. If a warranty covers the defect and repairs have been ineffective, pursuing a claim may still be appropriate. Documentation and timely notification remain essential to preserve potential remedies.
The duration of a lemon law matter varies depending on whether it resolves through negotiation, arbitration, or litigation. Some cases settle within weeks or a few months when the manufacturer is responsive, while others that proceed to arbitration or court can take longer. For South San Francisco riders, prompt documentation and early communication with the manufacturer often shorten the timeline and increase the likelihood of a negotiated resolution without formal hearing. If arbitration or litigation becomes necessary, timelines depend on scheduling, evidence preparation, and procedural steps. Preparing a clear, well-organized file at the outset helps streamline proceedings and can reduce delays, enabling a faster path to buyback, replacement, or other relief when warranted.
Dealer service centers are often the first point of repair and play a central role in building a lemon law claim by creating repair orders and documenting attempts to fix defects. Their invoices, technician notes, and work authorizations form much of the factual record used to demonstrate repeated repair attempts and continuing problems. For South San Francisco riders, obtaining complete service records from local dealerships is essential to establish the repair timeline and the manufacturer’s opportunity to cure the defect. If a dealer repeatedly fails to repair a defect or if repairs are ineffective, those service records support a claim against the manufacturer. Clear documentation from authorized service centers helps show the pattern of failure and strengthens demands for buyback, replacement, or compensation under California law.
To have Law Republic APC review your motorcycle lemon law matter in South San Francisco, you can contact our office by phone at 818-532-5323 or submit an inquiry through our website. We begin with a review of your purchase documents, warranty information, and repair history to determine whether your situation likely qualifies for lemon law remedies and to outline potential next steps. Early review helps preserve evidence and clarifies the most effective path for resolution. During the initial review we will explain relevant timelines, documentation needs, and possible outcomes such as buyback, replacement, or monetary recovery. If pursuing a claim is appropriate, we assist with organizing records, preparing demand communications, and pursuing negotiation or formal dispute resolution to achieve a fair outcome under California law.
