arrow left
arrow right
  • ERICA MARIE ANDERSSON VS KIOMARS NAGHDI, ET AL. Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • ERICA MARIE ANDERSSON VS KIOMARS NAGHDI, ET AL. Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction) document preview
						
                                

Preview

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 06/26/2019 05:48 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by R. Clifton,Deputy Clerk 19STCV22427 Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Holly Fujie 1 THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM HOVANES MARGARIAN, SBN 246359 2 SHUSHANIK MARGARIAN, SBN 318617 801 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 210 3 Glendale, California 91203 Telephone Number: (818) 553-1000 4 Facsimile Number: (818) 553-1005 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff, ERICA MARIE ANDERSSON 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 11 ERICA MARIE ANDERSSON, an ) Case No.: individual, ) 12 ) Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 13 ) vs. ) 14 ) KIOMARS NAGHDI, an individual; AUTO ) 15 WHOLESALE OUTLET, form of entity ) unknown; and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, ) 16 ) Defendants. ) 17 ) 18 NATURE OF THE ACTION 19 NOW COMES the Plaintiff ERICA MARIE ANDERSSON, an individual, by and through 20 Plaintiff’s attorneys The Margarian Law Firm with Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages against 21 Defendants, KIOMARS NAGHDI, an individual; AUTO WHOLESALE OUTLET, form of entity 22 unknown; and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive. 23 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants sold Plaintiff a 2003 24 Ford F250 bearing VIN 1FTNW20P73ED19156 (“Subject Vehicle”), that Defendants were fully aware 25 of having been previously exhibited nonconformities which rendered it unmerchantable. Plaintiff was 26 sold the Subject Vehicle without any reference to its unmerchantable condition. Instead, Defendants 27 verbally assured Plaintiff that the vehicle was in excellent mechanical condition. Furthermore, 28 Defendants failed to smog check the vehicle and embezzled Plaintiff’s payment towards the vehicle’s PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES