Preview
Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 12/13/2022 11:48:09 AM.
30-2022-01296657-CU-BC-CJC - ROA # 2 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By Y. Ramirez, Deputy Clerk.
1 GOLDSMITH WEST,
A Professional Law Corporation
2 David A. Goldsmith (State Bar No. 232457)
Phuc Minh ("Peter") Le (State Bar No. 313323)
3 609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200
Rolling Hills Estates, California 90274
4 Tel: +1 (310) 620-8560 ▪ Fax: +1 (310) 861-5527
firm@goldsmithwest.com
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jeffrey Ross
6
GOLDSMITH WEST, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF ORANGE
a l
rt
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CALIFORNIA 90274
10 CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
11
P o
609 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE, SUITE 200
+1 (310) 620-8560
12 JEFFREY ROSS, Case Number
13
s s COMPLAINT
ce
Plaintiff,
14 DEMAND FOR ELECTRONIC SERVICE
15 v.
A c DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
TELEPHONE:
16
17 and DOES 1 to 50,
d a
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
i
18
19
M e Defendants.
20 Plaintiff alleges as follows:
21 Common Allegations
22 1. As used in this Complaint, the word “Plaintiff” shall mean Plaintiff Jeffrey Ross.
23 2. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued under
24 the fictitious names DOES 1 to 50. They are sued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
25 474. When Plaintiff becomes aware of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued as
26 DOES 1 to 50, Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to state their true names and capacities.
27 3. Defendants DOES 11 to 50 are persons who conspired to commit, aided, abetted,
28 and/or ratified the conduct alleged in this Complaint.
-1-
Complaint; Demand For Electronic Service; Demand For Jury Trial
1 4. On or about August 17, 2021, Plaintiff leased a 2021 Acura TLX (hereafter
2 “Vehicle”) which was manufactured, distributed, or sold by Defendants American Honda Motor
3 Co., Inc. and DOES 1 to 10 (hereafter “Defendant Warrantor”). The total consideration which
4 Plaintiff paid or agreed to pay, including taxes, license, and finance charges is $51,378.35. The
5 Vehicle was leased and/or used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, or
6 qualifies as a new motor vehicle under subdivision (e)(2) of Civil Code section 1793.22.
GOLDSMITH WEST, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
7 Plaintiff leased the Vehicle from a person or entity engaged in the business of manufacturing,
8 distributing, or selling consumer goods at retail.
9 5.
a l
Plaintiff’s agreement to lease the Vehicle is subject to the provisions of Civil
rt
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CALIFORNIA 90274
10 Code § 2986.10, which provides that "[a]n assignee of the lessor's rights is subject to all equities
11
o
and defenses of the lessee against the lessor, notwithstanding an agreement to the contrary . . . ."
P
609 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE, SUITE 200
+1 (310) 620-8560
12 Defendants DOES 21 through 30 are or, at one time, were assignees of the lease and are thus
13
s s
subject to all equities and defenses which Plaintiff could assert against the lessor.
14 6.
c e
In connection with the lease, Plaintiff received an express written warranty in
15
c
which Defendant Warrantor undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the
A
TELEPHONE:
16 Vehicle or to provide compensation if there is a failure in utility or performance for a specified
17
i a
period of time. The warranty provided, in relevant part, that in the event a defect developed with
d
18
19
M e
the Vehicle during the warranty period, Plaintiff could deliver the Vehicle for repair services to
Defendant Warrantor’s representative and the Vehicle would be repaired.
20 7. During the warranty period, the Vehicle contained or developed various defects,
21 including, but not limited to, defects which cause the Vehicle's infotainment screen to freeze
22 and/or shut off while in use, defects which cause the Vehicle's door locks to be intermittently
23 inoperable while in use, defects which cause the Vehicle to have a harsh and/or jerky
24 transmission shift while driving, defects which cause the Vehicle to hesitate while driving,
25 defects which cause the Vehicle to bang into gear while driving, defects which cause the Vehicle
26 to make noise when braking while driving, and defects which cause the Vehicle's side-view
27 mirror lights to fail while in use.
28 ///
-2-
Complaint; Demand For Electronic Service; Demand For Jury Trial
1 8. Plaintiff has rightfully rejected and/or justifiably revoked acceptance of the
2 Vehicle, and has exercised a right to cancel the sale. By serving this Complaint, Plaintiff does so
3 again. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks the remedies provided in California Civil Code section
4 1794(b)(1), including the entire purchase price. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks the remedies
5 set forth in California Civil Code section 1794(b)(2), including the diminution in value of the
6 Vehicle resulting from its defects. Plaintiff believes that, at the present time, the Vehicle’s value
GOLDSMITH WEST, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
7 is de minimis.
8 First Cause of Action
9
a l
By Plaintiff Jeffrey Ross Against Defendants American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and DOES
rt
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CALIFORNIA 90274
10 1 to 30
11
o
Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability
P
609 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE, SUITE 200
+1 (310) 620-8560
12 Cal. Civ. Code § 1794
13 9.
s s
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
14 through 8, above.
c e
15 10.
c
Pursuant to Civil Code §§ 1792 and 1791.1, the sale of the Vehicle was
A
TELEPHONE:
16 accompanied by Defendant Warrantor’s implied warranty of merchantability. The duration of
17
i a
the implied warranty is coextensive in duration with the duration of the express written warranty
d
18
19
M e
provided by Defendant Warrantor.
11. The implied warranty of merchantability means and includes that the Vehicle will
20 comply with each of the following requirements: (1) The Vehicle will pass without objection in
21 the trade under the contract description; (2) The Vehicle is fit for the ordinary purposes for which
22 such goods are used; (3) The Vehicle is adequately contained, packaged, and labeled; and (4)
23 The Vehicle will conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.
24 12. During the time period in which the implied warranty was in effect, the Vehicle
25 contained or developed the defects stated in paragraph 7, above. The existence of each of these
26 defects constitutes a breach of the implied warranty because the Vehicle (1) does not pass
27 without objection in the trade under the contract description, (2) is not fit for the ordinary
28
-3-
Complaint; Demand For Electronic Service; Demand For Jury Trial
1 purposes for which such goods are used, (3) is not adequately contained, packaged, and labeled,
2 and (4) does not conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.
3 13. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant Warrantor’s failure to comply with its
4 obligations under the implied warranty, and therefore brings this claim pursuant to Civil Code §
5 1794.
6 Second Cause of Action
GOLDSMITH WEST, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
7 By Plaintiff Jeffrey Ross Against Defendants American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and DOES
8 1 to 30
9 Breach of the Implied Warranty of Fitness
a l
rt
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CALIFORNIA 90274
10 Cal. Civ. Code § 1794
11 14.
o
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
P
609 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE, SUITE 200
+1 (310) 620-8560
12 through 8, above.
13 15.
s s
Defendant Warrantor is a manufacturer, distributor, or seller who had reason to
14
c e
know at the time of the retail sale that the Vehicle was required for a particular purpose and that
15
c
the Plaintiff was relying on the Defendant Warrantor’s skill or judgment to select or furnish
A
TELEPHONE:
16 suitable goods.
17 16.
d i a
Pursuant to Civil Code § 1792.1, the sale of the Vehicle was accompanied by
18
19
M e
Defendant Warrantor’s implied warranty that the Vehicle would be fit for Plaintiff’s particular
purpose. The duration of the implied warranty is coextensive in duration with the duration of the
20 express written warranty provided by Defendant Warrantor.
21 17. On or about August 17, 2021, or during the time period in which the implied
22 warranty was in effect, the Vehicle contained or developed the defects stated in paragraph 7,
23 above. The existence of each of these defects constitutes a breach of the implied warranty
24 because the Vehicle is not fit for Plaintiff’s particular purpose.
25 18. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant Warrantor’s failure to comply with its
26 obligations under the implied warranty, and therefore brings this claim pursuant to Civil Code §
27 1794.
28 ///
-4-
Complaint; Demand For Electronic Service; Demand For Jury Trial
1 Third Cause of Action
2 By Plaintiff Jeffrey Ross Against Defendants American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and DOES
3 1 to 40
4 Breach of Express Warranty
5 Cal. Civ. Code § 1794
6 19. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
GOLDSMITH WEST, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
7 through 8, above.
8 20. In accordance with Defendant Warrantor’s warranty, Plaintiff delivered the
9
a l
Vehicle to Defendant Warrantor’s representative in this state to perform warranty repairs.
rt
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CALIFORNIA 90274
10 Plaintiff may continue to do so even after this lawsuit is filed. Plaintiff did so within a
11
o
reasonable time. Each time Plaintiff delivered the Vehicle, Plaintiff notified Defendant
P
609 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE, SUITE 200
+1 (310) 620-8560
12 Warrantor and its representative of the characteristics of the defects. However, the
13
s s
representative failed to repair the Vehicle, breaching the terms of the written warranty on each
14 occasion.
c e
15 21.
c
In addition, Defendant provided a warranty by virtue of a sample or model.
A
TELEPHONE:
16 However, the Vehicle did not conform to the sample or model that Defendant provided.
17 22.
d i a
Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant Warrantor’s failure to comply with its
18
19
M e
obligations under the express warranty, and therefore brings this claim pursuant to Civil Code §
1794(a).
20 23. Civil Code § 1794(a) is a statute that imposes strict liability without regard to
Preview
Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 12/13/2022 11:48:09 AM. 30-2022-01296657-CU-BC-CJC - ROA # 2 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By Y. Ramirez, Deputy Clerk. 1 GOLDSMITH WEST, A Professional Law Corporation 2 David A. Goldsmith (State Bar No. 232457) Phuc Minh ("Peter") Le (State Bar No. 313323) 3 609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200 Rolling Hills Estates, California 90274 4 Tel: +1 (310) 620-8560 ▪ Fax: +1 (310) 861-5527 firm@goldsmithwest.com 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff Jeffrey Ross 6 GOLDSMITH WEST, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF ORANGE a l rt ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CALIFORNIA 90274 10 CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER 11 P o 609 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE, SUITE 200 +1 (310) 620-8560 12 JEFFREY ROSS, Case Number 13 s s COMPLAINT ce Plaintiff, 14 DEMAND FOR ELECTRONIC SERVICE 15 v. A c DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL TELEPHONE: 16 17 and DOES 1 to 50, d a AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. i 18 19 M e Defendants. 20 Plaintiff alleges as follows: 21 Common Allegations 22 1. As used in this Complaint, the word “Plaintiff” shall mean Plaintiff Jeffrey Ross. 23 2. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued under 24 the fictitious names DOES 1 to 50. They are sued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 25 474. When Plaintiff becomes aware of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued as 26 DOES 1 to 50, Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to state their true names and capacities. 27 3. Defendants DOES 11 to 50 are persons who conspired to commit, aided, abetted, 28 and/or ratified the conduct alleged in this Complaint. -1- Complaint; Demand For Electronic Service; Demand For Jury Trial 1 4. On or about August 17, 2021, Plaintiff leased a 2021 Acura TLX (hereafter 2 “Vehicle”) which was manufactured, distributed, or sold by Defendants American Honda Motor 3 Co., Inc. and DOES 1 to 10 (hereafter “Defendant Warrantor”). The total consideration which 4 Plaintiff paid or agreed to pay, including taxes, license, and finance charges is $51,378.35. The 5 Vehicle was leased and/or used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, or 6 qualifies as a new motor vehicle under subdivision (e)(2) of Civil Code section 1793.22. GOLDSMITH WEST, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 7 Plaintiff leased the Vehicle from a person or entity engaged in the business of manufacturing, 8 distributing, or selling consumer goods at retail. 9 5. a l Plaintiff’s agreement to lease the Vehicle is subject to the provisions of Civil rt ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CALIFORNIA 90274 10 Code § 2986.10, which provides that "[a]n assignee of the lessor's rights is subject to all equities 11 o and defenses of the lessee against the lessor, notwithstanding an agreement to the contrary . . . ." P 609 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE, SUITE 200 +1 (310) 620-8560 12 Defendants DOES 21 through 30 are or, at one time, were assignees of the lease and are thus 13 s s subject to all equities and defenses which Plaintiff could assert against the lessor. 14 6. c e In connection with the lease, Plaintiff received an express written warranty in 15 c which Defendant Warrantor undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the A TELEPHONE: 16 Vehicle or to provide compensation if there is a failure in utility or performance for a specified 17 i a period of time. The warranty provided, in relevant part, that in the event a defect developed with d 18 19 M e the Vehicle during the warranty period, Plaintiff could deliver the Vehicle for repair services to Defendant Warrantor’s representative and the Vehicle would be repaired. 20 7. During the warranty period, the Vehicle contained or developed various defects, 21 including, but not limited to, defects which cause the Vehicle's infotainment screen to freeze 22 and/or shut off while in use, defects which cause the Vehicle's door locks to be intermittently 23 inoperable while in use, defects which cause the Vehicle to have a harsh and/or jerky 24 transmission shift while driving, defects which cause the Vehicle to hesitate while driving, 25 defects which cause the Vehicle to bang into gear while driving, defects which cause the Vehicle 26 to make noise when braking while driving, and defects which cause the Vehicle's side-view 27 mirror lights to fail while in use. 28 /// -2- Complaint; Demand For Electronic Service; Demand For Jury Trial 1 8. Plaintiff has rightfully rejected and/or justifiably revoked acceptance of the 2 Vehicle, and has exercised a right to cancel the sale. By serving this Complaint, Plaintiff does so 3 again. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks the remedies provided in California Civil Code section 4 1794(b)(1), including the entire purchase price. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks the remedies 5 set forth in California Civil Code section 1794(b)(2), including the diminution in value of the 6 Vehicle resulting from its defects. Plaintiff believes that, at the present time, the Vehicle’s value GOLDSMITH WEST, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 7 is de minimis. 8 First Cause of Action 9 a l By Plaintiff Jeffrey Ross Against Defendants American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and DOES rt ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CALIFORNIA 90274 10 1 to 30 11 o Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability P 609 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE, SUITE 200 +1 (310) 620-8560 12 Cal. Civ. Code § 1794 13 9. s s Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 14 through 8, above. c e 15 10. c Pursuant to Civil Code §§ 1792 and 1791.1, the sale of the Vehicle was A TELEPHONE: 16 accompanied by Defendant Warrantor’s implied warranty of merchantability. The duration of 17 i a the implied warranty is coextensive in duration with the duration of the express written warranty d 18 19 M e provided by Defendant Warrantor. 11. The implied warranty of merchantability means and includes that the Vehicle will 20 comply with each of the following requirements: (1) The Vehicle will pass without objection in 21 the trade under the contract description; (2) The Vehicle is fit for the ordinary purposes for which 22 such goods are used; (3) The Vehicle is adequately contained, packaged, and labeled; and (4) 23 The Vehicle will conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label. 24 12. During the time period in which the implied warranty was in effect, the Vehicle 25 contained or developed the defects stated in paragraph 7, above. The existence of each of these 26 defects constitutes a breach of the implied warranty because the Vehicle (1) does not pass 27 without objection in the trade under the contract description, (2) is not fit for the ordinary 28 -3- Complaint; Demand For Electronic Service; Demand For Jury Trial 1 purposes for which such goods are used, (3) is not adequately contained, packaged, and labeled, 2 and (4) does not conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label. 3 13. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant Warrantor’s failure to comply with its 4 obligations under the implied warranty, and therefore brings this claim pursuant to Civil Code § 5 1794. 6 Second Cause of Action GOLDSMITH WEST, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 7 By Plaintiff Jeffrey Ross Against Defendants American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and DOES 8 1 to 30 9 Breach of the Implied Warranty of Fitness a l rt ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CALIFORNIA 90274 10 Cal. Civ. Code § 1794 11 14. o Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 P 609 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE, SUITE 200 +1 (310) 620-8560 12 through 8, above. 13 15. s s Defendant Warrantor is a manufacturer, distributor, or seller who had reason to 14 c e know at the time of the retail sale that the Vehicle was required for a particular purpose and that 15 c the Plaintiff was relying on the Defendant Warrantor’s skill or judgment to select or furnish A TELEPHONE: 16 suitable goods. 17 16. d i a Pursuant to Civil Code § 1792.1, the sale of the Vehicle was accompanied by 18 19 M e Defendant Warrantor’s implied warranty that the Vehicle would be fit for Plaintiff’s particular purpose. The duration of the implied warranty is coextensive in duration with the duration of the 20 express written warranty provided by Defendant Warrantor. 21 17. On or about August 17, 2021, or during the time period in which the implied 22 warranty was in effect, the Vehicle contained or developed the defects stated in paragraph 7, 23 above. The existence of each of these defects constitutes a breach of the implied warranty 24 because the Vehicle is not fit for Plaintiff’s particular purpose. 25 18. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant Warrantor’s failure to comply with its 26 obligations under the implied warranty, and therefore brings this claim pursuant to Civil Code § 27 1794. 28 /// -4- Complaint; Demand For Electronic Service; Demand For Jury Trial 1 Third Cause of Action 2 By Plaintiff Jeffrey Ross Against Defendants American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and DOES 3 1 to 40 4 Breach of Express Warranty 5 Cal. Civ. Code § 1794 6 19. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 GOLDSMITH WEST, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 7 through 8, above. 8 20. In accordance with Defendant Warrantor’s warranty, Plaintiff delivered the 9 a l Vehicle to Defendant Warrantor’s representative in this state to perform warranty repairs. rt ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CALIFORNIA 90274 10 Plaintiff may continue to do so even after this lawsuit is filed. Plaintiff did so within a 11 o reasonable time. Each time Plaintiff delivered the Vehicle, Plaintiff notified Defendant P 609 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE, SUITE 200 +1 (310) 620-8560 12 Warrantor and its representative of the characteristics of the defects. However, the 13 s s representative failed to repair the Vehicle, breaching the terms of the written warranty on each 14 occasion. c e 15 21. c In addition, Defendant provided a warranty by virtue of a sample or model. A TELEPHONE: 16 However, the Vehicle did not conform to the sample or model that Defendant provided. 17 22. d i a Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant Warrantor’s failure to comply with its 18 19 M e obligations under the express warranty, and therefore brings this claim pursuant to Civil Code § 1794(a). 20 23. Civil Code § 1794(a) is a statute that imposes strict liability without regard to