Our seasoned trial attorneys provide a practical and economic approach to mediation, permitting parties to navigate complex disputes to meaningful resolutions. As court-appointed and private mediators our panelists bring a comprehensive and balanced approach to the disputes brought before us.

Mediation Practice Areas

With the advent of AB1755 and SB26, the Song-Beverly Act, and to some extent, the Tanner Act have been fundamentally changed in several ways.  ReadyResolve offers cutting edge understanding of these changes in the law in order to help your clients reach informed resolution of your Lemon Law matters.

ReadyResolve mediators all have 30 or more years of experience handling complex catastrophic personal injury and death cases arising from trucking, automobile, construction and products liability accidents.

ReadyResolve mediator Peter J. Van Zandt has decades of experience handling all manner of cases including class and individual statutory claims arising from violations of the TCPA, FCRA, FDCPA, the Rees-Levering Act, the California Homeowners Bill of Rights, the Rosenthal Act, and general consumer protection laws.

ABOTA member Steven Werth has extensive experience handling all aspects of employment litigation, including wrongful termination, discrimination, and harassment. This experience includes both trials and mediations. ReadyResolve mediators bring decades of experience in handling employment related matters.
As an offshoot to employment litigation, these mediators have also handled numerous sexual abuse matters involving religious and nonprofit organizations and have successfully resolved most of these matters short of trial.

Mediation Panelists

PETER J. VAN ZANDT

Peter J. Van Zandt, a partner of Allen, Glaessner, Hazelwood & Werth, has built a stellar reputation as a versatile, sophisticated trial lawyer. He has tried more than 60 civil cases over a career spanning three decades. His practice has focused primarily on defending consumer financial services individual and class actions, warranty, products liability, fraudulent concealment, catastrophic personal injury, aviation, trucking, RV, bus and automobile litigation matters. Mr. Van Zandt’s mediation practice is informed by his years of trial experience and day to day handling and resolution of a wide range of cases. His method is practical and he efficiently moves the parties together by quickly identifying paths to resolution.

STEVEN D. WERTH

Steven Werth, a founding partner of the firm, brings extensive experience in employment and personal injury law to his mediation practice. A member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), he has handled complex litigation, including jury trials, class actions, and appeals. Mr. Werth’s expertise in employment law, union grievances, and proceedings before a variety of state and federal agencies positions him to mediate disputes effectively. He has also served as a court appointed ADR facilitator, helping parties reach fair and efficient resolutions.

Get started.

Please complete the form below to submit your request for mediation services. Our team will conduct a conflicts check and then get in touch with further information.

MM slash DD slash YYYY

Upload Documents

Max. file size: 128 MB.
Max. file size: 128 MB.

Insights from Our Mediation Panelists

Mediator’s perspective on AB1755 and SB26 which will go into full effect as of July 1, 2025

By Peter J. Van Zandt

EARLY ADR

 New CCP section 871.26(d) will require a mandatory mediation process with the option for in-person or remote attendance.  It requires that within 90 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, the parties must schedule mediation. Mediation must occur within 150 days.

CCP Section 871.25 will mandate standardized language of a Lemon Law release agreement.

If mediation does not resolve the case, the Legislative intent of encouraging early disposition  will have been exhausted and the case can proceed as Lemon Law cases have in the past with formal discovery, more and longer depositions, and the like.

 PRE-SUIT NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

 The pre-suit notice requirement of new CCP section 871.24 totally changes existing law, which had never required a pre-suit buyback demand by the consumer but for 2025 and later cases now will.  For manufacturers who elect to be bound by these new rules (which I believe will be most if not all of them), the consumer must provide a written buyback demand notice to the manufacturer at least 30 days before filing a lawsuit that seeks civil penalties. The notice must include the consumer’s name, the vehicle’s “VIN”, a summary of the repair history, and a request for repurchase or replacement.  Since almost all Lemon Law lawsuits seek civil penalties, this pre-suit notice will become the new norm.  After receiving the notice, the manufacturer has 30 days to comply with the request before plaintiff can file suit, and the consumer cannot sell the car while the buy-back demand and response are pending.  To comply with the new law, the manufacturer’s Buy-Back offer per new CCP 871.24(e)(1(A) must include a provision for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if the consumer is represented by an attorney.

SPEEDY SETTLEMENTS AND SURRENDERS

 If the manufacturer chooses to proceed with replacement or restitution, it must be completed within 60 days (unless extended by both sides) after receiving the original notice in order to avoid a lawsuit being filed.  CCP section 871.24(f) provides that a “prelitigation dispute as to attorney fees and costs shall be resolved by neutral, binding arbitration [i.e., NOT by noticed motion].  A dispute as to the amount of attorney fees and costs shall not, by itself, be a sufficient basis to show that the manufacturer’s offer is out of compliance with this section.”  Section 871.25 will mandate standardized language of a Lemon Law release agreement.  Manufacturers failing to complete restitution or replacement within 30 days of receiving a signed release face daily penalties of $50 until the settlement is finalized, unless the delay is due to the consumer’s lack of good faith compliance.

 

 

Madrigal v. Hyundai- CCP 998 does not require trial

By Peter J. Van Zandt

The California Supreme Court has clarified how the cost-shifting provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 (“Section 998”) may apply when a case settles before trial. In a recent decision, Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America, the Court held that a plaintiff who rejects a valid Section 998 offer and later settles for less than the offer amount may still face the statute’s cost-shifting consequences—even without a trial verdict. This decision is a cautionary tale for affected consumers and strengthens Section 998 as a strategic tool for auto manufacturers  looking to limit exposure to attorneys’ fees and costs.

This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. It is intended to provide general information about legal developments and is not legal advice. If you have questions about the contents of this alert, please contact Peter J. Van Zandt.

CANCELLATION POLICY

There will be a $500.00 per party deposit due on confirmation of scheduling.  There is no charge for cancellations made 48 hours prior to mediation.  Cancellations within 48 hours of mediation will result in a forfeiture of deposit.