-1- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Transcription

1 VACHON LAW FIRM Michael R. Vachon, Esq. (SBN ) 0 Via Del Campo, Suite San Diego, California Tel.: () -0 Fax: () - Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES NORTH DISTRICT MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH ANTELOPE VALLEY COURTHOUSE DUKE MCDUFFIE, Plaintiff, v. MAADARANI MOTORS, et al., Defendants. Case No.: MC0 FOR: 1. BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY;. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY; AND. VIOLATION OF CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT (INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES) -1-

2 SUMMARY 1. This lawsuit arises out of Plaintiffs purchase of a used automobile from Defendant Maadarani Motors (a Lancaster, California used car dealership). Maadarani Motors is refusing to honor the express and implied warranties that it made accompanying Plaintiff s purchase of a certified pre-owned 0 Mercedes-Benz automobile (the Mercedes-Benz ). Specifically, the Mercedes-Benz developed a serious transmission-related defect during the warranty period that prevents Plaintiff from using and relying upon the vehicle, and diminishes its value. Plaintiff took the Mercedes-Benz back to Maadarani Motors on several occasion seeking repairs, but the dealership performed only band-aid repairs, and refused to properly fix the defect. After several unsuccessful repair attempts, Maadarani Motors misrepresented to Plaintiff that it no longer had a duty to repair the Mercedes-Benz (when in reality it did), and refused to attempt further repairs. Plaintiff asked Maadarani Motors to unwind his purchase of the Mercedes-Benz and give him a refund, but the dealership refused, leaving Plaintiff no other choice but to file this lawsuit.. Maadarani Motors's conduct amounts to breaches of the express and implied warranties that accompanied the sale of the Mercedes-Benz. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to rescind the purchase contract, and to restitution of all amounts that he paid. Maadarani Motors also violated the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code 0 et seq.) by misrepresenting to Plaintiff that it was no longer obligated to fix the Mercedes-Benz and by failing to give him a certification checklist for an automobile that it advertised and sold as a certified pre-owned vehicle. PARTIES. Plaintiff Duke McDuffie is an individual residing in Lancaster, California. --

3 . Maadarani Motors is the fictitious name of Defendant Ahmad Ali Maadarani. At the time of the filing of the initial complaint in this action, Plaintiff was ignorant of Maadarani Motors true legal name, and named Maadarani Motors as a business entity, form unknown. Upon becoming aware that Maadarani Motors is the fictitious business name of Ahmad Ali Maadarani, an individual, Plaintiff now hereby clarifies that Maadarani Motors as used throughout this Complaint, refers to Defendant Ahmad Ali Maadarani, an individual. Maadarani Motors does business as the used car dealership Maadarani Motors at 0 North Sierra Highway, Lancaster, California.. Defendant Gateway One Lending & Finance, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company (hereafter referred to as Gateway ). Gateway is the lender to whom Maadarani Motors assigned Plaintiff s purchase contract for the Mercedes-Benz. Accordingly, Plaintiff can, and does, hereby assert all of the claims, defenses, causes of action, and equities that he can assert against Maadarani Motors herein against Gateway.. Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities, whether corporate, partnership, associate, individual, or otherwise, of defendants sued herein as Does 1 through, inclusive, and thus names them under the provisions of Section of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Defendants Does 1 through are in some manner responsible for the acts set forth herein, and are legally liable to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will set forth the true names of the fictitiously-named defendants together with appropriate charging allegations when ascertained.. All acts of corporate employees were authorized or ratified by an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporate employer. /// --

4 FACTS. Plaintiffs allege as follows, on information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:. On or about February,, Plaintiff visited Maadarani Motors at its dealership lot at 0 Sierra Highway, Lancaster, California, and viewed that certain 0 Mercedes-Benz CLK Class with vehicle identification number WDBTJHF000 (the Mercedes-Benz ). The Maadarani Motors s representative who assisted Plaintiff told him that all of Maadarani Motors s automobiles, including the Mercedes-Benz, are certified pre-owned vehicles that come with a comprehensive three month/,000 mile warranty. Based on Maadarani Motors s representations, Plaintiff decided to purchase the Mercedes-Benz from Maadarani Motors.. Prior to Plaintiff s purchase of the Mercedes-Benz, Maadarani Motors did not give Plaintiff a copy of the Mercedes-Benz s certification checklist, and as of the filing of this lawsuit, Maadarani Motors still has not given Plaintiff a copy of the checklist.. Plaintiff s purchase of the Mercedes-Benz was accompanied by the Maadarani Motors s express months/,000 miles written warranty and the implied warranty of merchantability.. After Plaintiff s purchase of the Mercedes-Benz, Maadarani Motors assigned the purchase contract for the Mercedes-Benz to Gateway.. While the applicable express and implied warranties were in effect, the Mercedes-Benz manifested a transmission defect (the "Defect") that substantially impairs Plaintiff s use of the Mercedes-Benz, its fair market value, and its safety. --

5 . Plaintiff returned to Maadarani Motors for repair of the Defect during the warranty period; however, Maadarani Motors returned the Mercedes-Benz to Plaintiff without properly diagnosing and repairing the defect.. Plaintiff has delivered the Mercedes-Benz to Maadarani Motors for repair of the Defect a total of at least three times; however, on each occasion Maadarani Motors returned the Mercedes-Benz to Plaintiff without properly diagnosing and repairing the defect.. Notwithstanding Maadarani Motors s obligation to repair the Mercedes- Benz under the dealership s warranty, Maadarani Motors misrepresented to Plaintiff that it no longer had an obligation to repair the Mercedes-Benz, even though it was legally required to do so.. Maadarani Motors refused Plaintiff s request that the dealership unwind the Mercedes-Benz transaction and refund Plaintiff s money, leaving Plaintiff no choice but to file this lawsuit. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of Express Warranty (Against All Defendants). Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through.. Maadarani Motors is the warrantor of the Mercedes-Benz s express warranty.. Pursuant to the Maadarani Motors s express warranty, Maadarani Motors undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the Mercedes-Benz or provide compensation if there was a failure in such utility or performance. --

6 . The Mercedes-Benz has and has had serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to, the Defect.. Under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the "California Lemon Law"), the Mercedes-Benz is a "consumer good" purchased primarily for family or household purposes and Plaintiff has used the vehicle primarily for those purposes.. Plaintiff is a "buyer" of consumer goods under the California Lemon Law.. Maadarani Motors is a "distributor" under the California Lemon Law.. The foregoing defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period. The nonconformities substantially impair the use, value and/or safety of the Mercedes-Benz.. Plaintiff delivered the vehicle to Maadarani Motors for repair of the nonconformities on numerous occasions; however, Maadarani Motors was and is unable or unwilling to conform the Mercedes-Benz to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts.. By failure of Maadarani Motors to remedy the defects as alleged above, or to issue a refund or replacement, Maadarani Motors is in breach of its obligations under the California Lemon Law.. Plaintiff is entitled to justifiably revoke acceptance of Mercedes-Benz under the California Lemon Law.. Under the California Lemon Law, Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of all payments made towards the Mercedes-Benz (less the amount directly attributable to Plaintiff s use of the Mercedes-Benz prior to discovery of the nonconformities). 0. Plaintiff is entitled to damages resulting from Maadarani Motors's failure to comply with its obligations under the California Lemon Law. --

7 1. Plaintiff is entitled under the California Lemon Law to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, reasonably incurred in connection with the commencement and prosecution of this action.. Plaintiff is entitled, in addition to the other amounts recovered, to a civil penalty of up to two times the amount of actual damages because Maadarani Motors willfully failed to comply with its responsibilities under the California Lemon Law.. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of Implied Warranty (Against All Defendants). Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through. Plaintiff s purchase of the Mercedes-Benz was accompanied by Maadarani Motors's implied warranty of merchantability.. The implied warranty of merchantability means and includes that the goods will comply with each of the following requirements: (1) they would pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; () they are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; () they are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled; and () they conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.. Because the Mercedes-Benz was sold to Plaintiff with a serious transmission defect that manifested itself within the period of the implied warranty and which substantially reduces its performance, value, and safety, it (1) would not pass without objection in the trade under the contract description as a certified pre-owned automobile, () was and is not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are --

8 used, () was not adequately contained, packaged, and labeled, and () did not conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.. Plaintiff has rightfully rejected and/or justifiably revoked acceptance of the Mercedes-Benz, and is entitled under the California Lemon Law to rescind the purchase contract and to restitution of all money paid towards the purchase contract. This Complaint also, again, hereby rejects and revokes acceptance of the Mercedes- Benz.. Plaintiff has been proximately damaged by Maadarani Motors's violations of the California Lemon Law, including its failure to comply with its obligations under the implied warranty of merchantability.. Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies provided by the California Lemon Law, including the remedies set forth in Civil Code Section, and including his attorney's fees, costs, and expenses. through. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Consumers Legal Remedies Act - Injunctive Relief and Damages (Against All Defendants) 0. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1 1. The Mercedes-Benz is a good under the CLRA that was bought for use primarily for personal, family or household purposes.. Plaintiff is a consumer under the CLRA.. The advertisement and the sale of the Mercedes-Benz to Plaintiff are transactions under the CLRA.. The CLRA prohibits numerous unlawful business acts, including: (i) representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, --

9 ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have or that a person has sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection which he or she does not have; (ii) representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are another; (iii) representing that a transaction confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which are prohibited by law; (iv) representing that the consumer will receive an economic benefit, if the earning of the benefit is contingent on an event to occur subsequent to the consummation of the transaction. The CLRA also prohibits California used car dealerships from advertising a used automobile as a certified pre-owned vehicle unless, prior to the sale, the dealer provides the buyer with a completed inspection report showing the buyer all components that were inspected.. Maadarani Motors violated the CLRA by: (1) failing to give Plaintiff a completed certification checklist prior to his purchase of the Mercedes-Benz; () misrepresenting that Maadarani Motors s warranty would provide comprehensive coverage for the Mercedes-Benz; and () misrepresenting that it no longer had a duty to repair the Mercedes-Benz, when it did have such an obligation.. Plaintiff sent the Dealership, via certified mail, return receipt requested, a Consumer Legal Remedies Act notification and demand letter at least 0 days prior to filing this Complaint. The notice letter sets forth the relevant facts, notifies Maadarani Motors of its CLRA violations, and requests that Maadarani Motors promptly remedy those violations.. Under the CLRA, a plaintiff may without prior notification file a complaint alleging violations of the CLRA that seeks injunctive relief only. Then, if the defendant does not remedy the CLRA violations within 0 days of notification, the plaintiff may amend her or his CLRA causes of action without leave of court to add claims for --

10 damages. The Dealership did not give or agree to give an appropriate correction, repair, replacement, or other remedy without the statutory time period. Accordingly, Plaintiff hereby amends this Complaint to add claims for actual and punitive damages under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.. Under the CLRA, Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting practices that violate the CLRA.. Maadarani Motors has an illegal pattern and practice of: (1) concealing and failing to give certified pre-owned car buyers certification checklists; () and misrepresenting the coverage provided by its warranties; and () misrepresenting that it no longer is obligated to repair automobiles, when it is in fact legally obligated to do so. 0. Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction that compels Maadarani Motors to notify all consumers who have been victims of the above-described illegal conduct, and enjoining Maadarani Motors from such further acts of illegal conduct. 1. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover his attorneys fees, costs, and expenses. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows as appropriate for the particular causes of action: 1. For the declaratory, equitable, and/or injunctive relief as requested above;. For general damages of $,.;. For a civil penalty under California s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act of $..0;. For punitive damages of $,.;. For pre judgment interest at the legal rate; --

11 . For reasonable attorneys fees, costs of suit, and out of pocket litigation expenses; and. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. VACHON LAW FIRM Attorney for Plaintiff Duke McDuffie Date: November, Michael R. Vachon, Esq. --