Michael S. Geller
Mr. Geller represents consumers and businesses in all forms of civil litigation including consumer actions and defense, auto dealer law and defense, collections and defense. Mr. Geller does extensive work in individual actions involving the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Business Practices Act.
Mr. Geller has taught other attorneys as well as other groups on California’s extensive consumer protection laws as well as false advertising and litigation under §17200 B&P. Mr. Geller is a member of the Consumer Attorneys of California as well as the Riverside County Bar Association. Mr. Geller is admitted to the California State Bar, the United States District Courts of California in the Central, Northern, Eastern and Southern Districts, United States Tax Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court.
Mr. Geller has led, participated and associated in various consumer class actions including numerous expiring gift certificate cases and other general consumer fraud cases. He has handled private attorney general cases, general class-action cases as well as representative actions in areas including false advertising, auto rental issues, gift certificates and gift cards, warranty issues and consumer fraud.
Mr. Geller has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration/Management from California State University Northridge as well as a Bachelor of Science Degree in Law and a Juris Doctor Degree from California Southern College of Law. Mr. Geller has taught Sales and Secured Transactions under the Uniform Commercial Code at California Southern College of Law to fourth-year law students. Mr. Geller has been a member of the California Bar since 1995.
Mr. Geller has 2 published cases of note. The first changed the California Lemon Law to make it clear that the consumer did not have to possess a car to receive the benefits and remedies under the California Lemon Law. [Martinez v. Kia (2011) 193 Cal. App. 4th 187] The most recent published case involves the statute of limitations in accountant malpractice cases. [Moss v. Duncan (2019) 193 Cal. App. 4th 187]