In a recent legal battle, a plaintiff has taken action against a major automobile manufacturer over allegations of selling a defective vehicle. On February 19, 2026, Antonio Castaneda filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, against General Motors LLC. The lawsuit centers around claims that Castaneda’s 2021 Chevrolet Corvette, purchased from Folsom Chevrolet, is defective and fails to meet the standards set by the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
Antonio Castaneda’s lawsuit highlights significant issues with his newly purchased vehicle. According to the complaint, Castaneda bought the car on May 19, 2021, for $118,158.25 with an initial down payment of $70,000. Despite being under warranty from General Motors (GM), the vehicle experienced substantial safety defects involving its transmission and engine. The plaintiff alleges that these defects rendered the car unusable for a total of forty-five days due to repairs. The case cites two specific incidents: one occurring between February 6 and February 28, 2023, where the vehicle exhibited no throttle response and transmission slipping at just under 10,000 miles; and another between October 31 and November 21, 2025, when a catastrophic engine failure occurred at approximately 17,000 miles.
Under California’s Lemon Law presumption—a statute designed to protect consumers who purchase faulty vehicles—Castaneda argues that his car qualifies as a “lemon.” This presumption applies if a vehicle is repaired multiple times for substantial safety defects or remains out of service for over thirty cumulative days due to repairs. In his complaint, Castaneda accuses GM of breaching both express and implied warranties as outlined in the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code section 1790 et seq). He contends that GM failed to either replace the defective vehicle or provide restitution despite numerous requests.
The plaintiff seeks several forms of relief from the court: rescission of the purchase contract; restitution for all monies spent; compensation for general damages including diminution in value; incidental and consequential damages; prejudgment interest; attorney fees; costs related to litigation expenses; and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Representing Antonio Castaneda is attorney David Bijan Zand from Zand Law APC based in Los Angeles. The case has been assigned Case No. [redacted] with proceedings taking place before judges within Sacramento County’s Superior Court system.
Source: 26CV003900_Antonio_Castaneda_v_General_Motors_Complaint_County_of_Sacramento_California.pdf
