Motion to Compel Discovery in Aiello Joseph Vs Fca Us Llc| Trellis.Law

On October 12, 2022 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Joseph P Aiello, and Fca Us Llc, Videon Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram, for Lemon Law in the District Court of Camden County.

Preview
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pglof2 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

ROSEWALDORF PLLC
By: StevenE. Mach, Esq,
Identification # 267832018
501 New Kamer Road
Albany, New
Y ork 12205
(518) 869-9200
Attorneys for Defendant FCA US LLC

JOSEPH P. AIELLO, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Plaintiff, LAW DIVISION, CIVIL PART
CAMDEN COUNTY
VS. DOCKET NO.: CAM-L-2709-22

CIVIL ACTION
FCA US LLC and
VIDEON CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM NOTICE OF FCA USLLC’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Defendant. RESPONSES

TO TimothyJ. Abeel, Jr., Esq.
Timothy Abeel & Associates, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
309 Fellowship Road
East Gate Center, Suite 200
Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 08054

Matthew
W. Biondi, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant Videon Chrysler Dodge J eep Ram.
One Evertrust Plaza
Suite 701, 4B
Jersey City, New Jersey 07302

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned, attomeys for Defendant FCA US LLC,

will move the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, on July 21, 2023 at

9:00 a.m., oras soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, for an Order, (i) pursuantto Rule 4:23-

1(a), compelling Plaintiff to respondto FCA US LLC’s written discovery demands, including its

Interrogatories and Requests for Production, together with such other and further relief that this

Court may deem just and proper.
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pg2of2 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, in support of this motion, Defendant will rely

upon the accompanying Certification of Steven E. Mach, dated June 29, 2023, and the relevant

exhibits annexed thereto and summarized therein.

ROSEWALDORF PLLC

By:
7
“StevenE. Mach
ROSEWALDORF PLLC
Attorney for Defendant FCA US LLC
501 New Kamer Road
Albany, New
Y ork 12205
(518) 869-9200
Dated: June 29, 2023

\\Rosewa01DCOIVol1\Data\ChryslerNJ Litigation\Matter\57957\Pleadings\Aiello - Motion to Compe (6.28.23).docx
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pglof2 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

ROSEWALDORF PLLC
By: Steven E. Mach, Esq.
Identification #: 267832018
501 New Karner Road
Albany, New York 12205
(518) 869-9200
Attorneys for Defendant FCA US LLC

JOSEPH P. AIELLO, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Plaintiff, LAW DIVISION, CIVIL PART
CAMDEN COUNTY
VS. DOCKET NO.: CAM-L-2709-22

CIVIL ACTION
FCA US LLC and
VIDEON CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM ORDER GRANTING FCA US LLC’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Defendant. RESPONSES

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant FCA US LLC’s motion for an Order,

pursuant to Rule 4:23-1(a), compelling Plaintiff to respond to FCA US LLC’s written discovery

demands, including its Interrogatories and Requests for Production. The motion was made on

notice to Timothy Abeel & Associates, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff, and Plaintiff
did [_] /did not

L] oppose the motion. The Court having considered the papers submitted by the parties, and

good cause appearing,

IT IS on this day of ORDERED as follows:

1 The motion of Defendant FCA US LLC to compel discovery is hereby GRANTED.

2 Plaintiff shall serve complete answers to Defendant’s First Request for Production

of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories within ten (10) days of the service of this Order upon

his counsel.

Service of a copy of this Order shall be deemed effectuated upon all counsel of record upon

its upload to eCourts.
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pg2of2 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

Pursuant to Rule 1:5-1(a), movant shall serve a copy of this Order on all parties not served

electronically within seven (7) days of the date of this Order.

Hon. IS.C.
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pg 1 of31 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

ROSEWALDORF PLLC
By: StevenE. Mach, Esq,
Identification # 267832018
501 New Kamer Road
Albany, New
Y ork 12205
(518) 869-9200
Attorneys for Defendant FCA US LLC

JOSEPH P. AIELLO, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Plaintiff, LAW DIVISION, CIVIL PART
CAMDEN COUNTY
VS. DOCKET NO.: CAM-L-2709-22

CIVIL ACTION
FCA US LLC and
VIDEON CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM CERTIFICATION IN SUPPORT OF
FCA US LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL
Defendant. DISCOVERY RESPONSES

STEVENE. MACH, ESQ., of full age, upon his Certification, says:

1 I am associated with RoseWaldorf PLLC, attomeys for Defendant FCA US LLC

(“FCA US”) in the above-captioned action. As such, I am fully familiar with the matters stated

herein.

2. The instant certification is submitted in support of Defendant’ s Motion to Compel.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

3. Plaintiff commenced the instant action by filing an Amended Complaint on October

12, 2022, a true and correct copy of which (without exhibits) is annexed hereto as Exhibit “A”. In

this action, Plaintiff asserts a breach of express and implied warranty pursuant to the Magnuson-

Moss Warranty Improvement Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq., based on allegations that his 2017

Ram 1500, VIN: 1C6RR7JT9HS575090 (the “Vehicle”) contained certain defects that were not

timely and/or properly repaired.
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pg 2 of 31 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

4. Issue was joined as to FCA US with the timely filing and service of its answer on

November 30, 2022, a true and correct copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit “B”.

5. On December 5, 2022, FCA US served various discovery demands on Plaintiff,

including its Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, as well as a Notice of

Deposition and request to inspect the Vehicle that is central to this action. A true and correct
copy

of the Certificate of Service is annexed hereto as Exhibit “C’”.

6. Having not received Plaintiff's responses, by letter dated June 7, 2023, the

undersigned requested that Plaintiff’ s responses be provided by June 17, 2023, in compliance with

counsel’ s good faith obligationto resolve discovery disputes priorto seeking relief with the Court.

A true and correct copy of counsel’s June 7, 2023 correspondence is annexed hereto as Exhibit
“"—:—D”,

7. Because FCA US has not yet received Plaintiff’ s responses, FCA US has been and

remains unable to proceed with Plaintiff’ s deposition or FCA US’ legal inspection of the Vehicle.

MOTION TO COMPEL

8. In light of the foregoing, Defendant respectfully
requests that this Court enter an

Order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to Defendant’ s written discovery requests.

9. Put simply, FCA US LLC will be unableto adequately prepare for the deposition

of the Plaintiff or the trial of this action without answers to its discovery demands. Defendant has

been patient and accommodating in its efforts to obtain responses to its discovery demands.

Nonetheless, Plaintiff has failed to timely serve any responses to the above-referenced discovery.

10. At this time, Defendant is not in default with respect to any discovery obligations

owed to Plaintiff.
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pg3of31 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

11. No previous motion seeking to compel responses to FCA US LLC’s discovery

demands have been previously filed with the Court.

12. Therefore, in orderto avoid significant prejudice to the defendant in this matter,

this Court should compel Plaintiff to provide responses to FCA US LLC’s discovery demands.

13. In Mangov. Pierce-Coombs, 370 N,J.Super. 239, 258 (App. Div. 2004), the court

held that “the disposition of discovery issues is within the trial court’s discretion.”

14. In addition, the Supreme Court has established
that “[i]f the discovery mules are to

be effective, courts must be prepared to impose appropriate sanctions for violations of the rules.”

Abtrax Phams., Inc. v. Elkins-Sinn, Inc., 139 NJ. 499, 512 (1999). Therefore, this Court should

grant the instant application
and compel Plaintiff to fully engage in the discovery process.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant FCA US LLC respectfully requests

an Order, pursuant to Rule 4:23-1(a), compelling Plaintiff to respondto FCA US LLC’s written

discovery demands, including its Interrogatories and Requests for Production, together with such

other and further relief that this Court may deem just and proper.

I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the

foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject
to punishment.

ROSEWALDORF PLLC

By:
SfevenE. Mach
ROSEWALDORF PLLC
Attorney for Defendant FCA US LLC
501 New Kamer Road
, New
Y ork 12205
(518) 869-9200
Dated: June 29, 2023
J.\Data\ChryslerNJ Litigation\Matter\57957\A
ello - Atty Certre Motionto Compe. docx
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pg4of31 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

EXHIBIT A
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pg5 of 31 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

Timothy J. Abeel, Jr., Esquire ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
Attorney ID #000292008
TIMOTHY ABEEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
309 Fellowship Road
East Gate Center, Suite 200
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
(888)830-1474

JOSEPH P. AIELLO SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN COUNTY

Vv. CIVIL ACTION

FCA US LLC AND NO.: CAM-L-002709-22
VIDEON CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM

AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 Plaintiff, Joseph P. Aiello, is an adult individual citizen and legal resident of the State

of New Jersey, residing at 28 Hayslope Court, Glassboro, NJ 08028.

2 Defendant, FCA US LLC, is a corporation qualified to do and regularly conduct

business in the State of New Jersey, with its address and principal place of business located at

12000 Chrysler Drive, Highland Park, MI 48288, and can be served at CT Corporation, 820 Bear

Tavern Road, Suite 305, West Trenton, NJ 08628.

3 Defendant, Videon Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram, is a corporation qualified to do and

regularly conduct business in the State of New Jersey, with its address and principal place of

business located at 4951 W. Chester Pike, Newtown Square, PA 19073, and can be served at this

address.

BACKGROUND

4, On or about April 8, 2022, Plaintiff purchased a used 2017 Dodge Ram,

manufactured and warranted by Defendant, bearing the Vehicle Identification Number

1C6RR7JT9HS575090.
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pg6of31 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

5. The vehicle was purchased in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is registered in

the State of New Jersey.

6. The contract price of the vehicle, including registration charges, document fees, sales

tax, but excluding other collateral charges not specified, yet defined by the Lemon Law, totaled

more than $39,171.67. A true and correct copy of the contract is attached hereto, made a part

hereof and marked Exhibit “A”.
7
In consideration for the purchase of said vehicle, Defendant issued to Plaintiff

several warranties, guarantees, affirmations or undertakings with respect to the material or

workmanship of the vehicle and/or remedial action in the event the vehicle fails to meet the

promised specifications.

8. The above-referenced warranties, guarantees, affirmations or undertakings

are/were part of the basis of the bargain between Defendant and Plaintiff.

9. The parties’ bargain includes an express warranty, as well as other guarantees,

affirmations and undertakings as stated in Defendant’s warranty materials and owner’s manual.

10. However, as a result of the ineffective repair attempts made by Defendant

through its authorized dealer(s), the vehicle is rendered substantially impaired, unable to be

utilized for its intended purposes and is worthless to Plaintiff.

11. During the warranty period, Plaintiff complained about defects and or non-

conformities to the following vehicle components: a noise when applying the brakes and there is

water leaking inside the vehicle which was fraudulently not disclosed to Plaintiff prior to

purchase. True and correct copies of the repair invoices are attached hereto, made a part hereof

and marked Exhibit “B”.

12. The vehicle continues to exhibit defects and nonconformities which substantially

impair its use, value and/or safety.
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pg7of31 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

COUNT I
MAGNUSON-MOSS (FTC) WARRANTY IMPROVEMENT ACT

13. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all facts and allegations set forth in this Complaint by

reference as if fully set forth at length herein.

14, Plaintiff has or may have resorted to Defendant’s informal dispute settlement

Procedure, to the extent said procedure complies with 16 CFR 703.

15. Plaintiff avers that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has determined that no

automobile manufacturer complies with 16 CFR 703, See, Fed. Reg. 15636, Vol. 62, No. 63

(Apr. 2, 1997).

16. Plaintiff is a “Consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §2301(3).

17. Defendant is a “supplie o> > &, ‘warrantor”, and a “service contractor” as defined by

15 U.S.C. §2301 (4),(5) and (8).

18. The subject vehicle is a “consumer product” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §2301(1).

19. By the terms of its written warranties, affirmations, promises, or service contracts,

Defendant agreed to perform effective repairs at no charge for parts and/or labor.

20. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act requires Defendant to be bound by

all warranties implied by state law. Said warranties are imposed on all transactions in the state

in which the vehicle was delivered.

21. Defendant has made attempts on several occasions to comply with the terms of its

Express warranties, however, such repair attempts have been ineffective.

22. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act, 15 U.S.C. §2310(d)(2) provides:

If a consumer finally prevails on an action brought under paragraph (1) of this
subsection, he may be allowed by the court to recover as part of the judgment a sum
equal to the amount of aggregate amount of costs and expenses (including attorney fees
based upon actual time expended), determined by the court to have been reasonably
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pg8of31 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

incurred by the Plaintiff for, or in connection with the commencement and prosecution of
such action, unless the court, in its discretion shall determine that such an award of
attorney’s fees would be inappropriate.

23. Plaintiff has afforded Defendant a reasonable number of opportunities to conform

the vehicle to the aforementioned express warranties, implied warranties and contracts.

24. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to comply with the express

written warranties, Plaintiff has suffered damages and, in accordance with 15 U.S.C.

§2310(d)(1), Plaintiff is entitled to bring suite for such damages and other legal and equitable

relief.

25. Defendant’s failure is a breach of Defendant’s contractual and statutory obligations

constituting a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act, including but not

limited to: breach of express warranties; breach of implied warranty of merchantability; breach

of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; breach of contract; and constitutes an

Unfair Trade Practice.

26. Plaintiff avers that Defendant’s warranty was not provided to Plaintiff until after the

vehicle was delivered, making any and all limitations, disclaimers, and/or alternative dispute

provisions ineffective for a failure of consideration.

27. Plaintiff avers that upon successfully prevailing upon the Magnuson-Moss claim

herein, all attorney fees are recoverable and are demanded against Defendant.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands judgment against Defendant in an amount

equal to the price of the subject vehicle, plus all collateral charges, incidental and consequential

damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and all court costs.
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pg9of31 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

COUNT I
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

28. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all facts and allegations set forth in this Complaint by

reference as if fully set forth as length herein.

29. The defects and nonconformities existing within the vehicle constitute a breach of

contractual and statutory obligations of Defendant, including but not limited to the following:

a. Express Warranty;

b. Implied Warranty of Merchantability; and

c. Implied Warranty Of Fitness For A Particular Purpose.

30. At the time of obtaining possession of the vehicle and at all times subsequent

thereto, Plaintiff has justifiably relied upon Defendant’s express warranties and implied

warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and implied warranties of merchantability.

31. At the time of obtaining possession of the vehicle and at all times subsequent

thereto, Defendant was aware Plaintiff was relying upon Defendant’s express and implied

warranties, obligations, and representations with regard to the subject vehicle.

32. Plaintiff has incurred damages as a direct and proximate result of the breach and

failure of Defendant to honor its express and implied warranties.

33. Such damages include, but are not limited to, the contract price of the vehicle plus

all collateral charges, including attorney fees and costs, as well as other expenses, the full extent

of which are not yet known.
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pg10of31 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands judgment against Defendant in an amount

equal to the contract price of the vehicle, plus all collateral charges and attorneys’ fees.

TIMOTHY ABEEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

By: /s/ Timothy J. Abeel, Jr.
Timothy J. Abeel, Jr., Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pg1lof31 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

JURY-DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury as to all the issues

TIMOTHY ABEEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

By: /s/ Timothy J. Abeel, Jr.
Timothy J. Abeel, Jr., Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R.4:15-1
Upon knowledge and belief, I hereby certify that there are no other actions or arbitrations

related to this suit pending or presently contemplated.

TIMOTHY ABEEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

By: /s/ Timothy J. Abeel, Jr.
Timothy J. Abeel, Jr., Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pg 12 0f31 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

CERTIFICATION OF NOTICE

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 56:8-20 Plaintiff is mailing a copy of this Complaint to the Office of

The Attorney General, Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex, 25 West Market Street in the City of

Trenton, County of Mercer, in the state of New Jersey on

TIMOTHY ABEEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

By: /s/ Timothy J. Abeel, Jr.
Timothy J. Abeel, Jr., Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pg 13 0f31 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 4:25-4, Timothy J. Abeel, Jr., Esq. is

designated as trial counsel for Plaintiff in this case.

TIMOTHY ABEEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

By: /s/ Timothy J. Abeel, Jr.
Timothy J. Abeel, Jr., Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pg 14 of 31 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

EXHIBIT B
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pg 15 of31 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

ROSEWALDORF PLLC
By: Keith B. Rose, Esquire —
Identification #: 012131998
Jon B. Waldorf, Esquire —
Identification #: 006242007
501 New Karner Road
Albany, New York 12205
518-869-9200
Attorney for Defendant, FCA US LLC

JOSEPH P. AIELLO, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff, CAMDEN COUNTY
DOCKET NO.: CAM-L-002709-22
Vs.
CIVIL ACTION

FCA US LLC and ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE
VIDEON CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM, DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT, FCA US
LLC
Defendants.

Defendant, FCA US LLC, by and through its attorneys, RoseWaldorf PLLC, hereby

responds to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and in support thereof states as follows:

1 FCA US LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the allegations asserted in paragraph “1” of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and

therefore, leaves Plaintiff to his proof.

2 FCA US LLC denies the allegations contained in paragraph “2” of Plaintiff's

Amended Complaint except admits that FCA US LLC is limited liability company duly

authorized to transact business in the State of New Jersey with a principal place of business at

1000 Chrysler Drive, Auburn Hills, Michigan.

3 FCA US LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the allegations asserted in paragraph “3” of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and

therefore, leaves Plaintiff to his proof.
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pg 16 of 31 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

BACKGROUND

4 FCA US LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the allegations asserted in paragraph “4” of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and

therefore, leaves Plaintiff to his proof except admits that FCA US LLC is the manufacturer and

warrantor of the 2017 Dodge Ram referred to herein.

5 FCA US LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the allegations asserted in paragraph “5S” of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and

therefore, leaves Plaintiff to his proof.

6. FCA US LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the allegations asserted in paragraph “6” of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and

therefore, leaves Plaintiff to his proof.
7
FCA US LLC denies the allegations contained in paragraph “7” of Plaintiffs

Amended Complaint except admits that the written limited warranty of the vehicle’s

manufacturer accompanied the vehicle at the time of its original delivery but refers to the trial

court questions regarding the terms and conditions ofthe written limited warranty.

8 FCA US LLC denies the allegations contained in paragraph “8” of Plaintiff's

Amended Complaint

9 FCA US LLC denies the allegations contained in paragraph “9” of Plaintiff's

Amended Complaint except admits that the written limited warranty of the vehicle’s

manufacturer accompanied the vehicle at the time of its original delivery but refers to the trial

court questions regarding the terms and conditions ofthe written limited warranty.

10. FCA US LLC denies the allegations contained in paragraph “10” of Plaintiff's

Amended Complaint.
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pg17 of 31 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

11. FCA US LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the allegations asserted in paragraph “11” of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and

therefore, leaves Plaintiff to his proof.

12. FCA US LLC denies the allegations contained in paragraph “12” of Plaintiff's

Amended Complaint.

COUNTI
MAGNUSON-MOSS (FTC) WA! TY IMPROV! ENT ACT

13. With respect to paragraph “13” of Count I of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint,

FCA US LLC repeats and re-alleges each of the above as if set forth at length herein.

14. FCA US LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the allegations asserted in paragraph “14” of Count I of Plaintiff's Amended

Complaint and therefore, leaves Plaintiff to his proof and refers statutory interpretation to the

trial court.

15. FCA US LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the allegations asserted in paragraph “15” of Count I of Plaintiff's Amended

Complaint and therefore, leaves Plaintiff to his proof and refers statutory interpretation to the

trial court.

16. FCA US LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the allegations asserted in paragraph “16” of Count I of Plaintiff's Amended

Complaint and therefore, leaves Plaintiff to his proof and refers statutory interpretation to the

trial court.

17. FCA US LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the allegations asserted in paragraph “17” of Count I of Plaintiff's Amended

Complaint and therefore, leaves Plaintiff to his proof and refers statutory interpretation to the
CAM-L-002709-22 06/29/2023 5:14:52 PM Pg 18 of 31 Trans ID: LCV20231977447

trial court.

18. FCA US LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the allegations asserted in paragraph “18” of Count I of Plaintiff's Amended

Complaint and therefore, leaves Plaintiff to his proof and refers statutory interpretation to the

trial court.

19. FCA US LLC denies the allegations contained in paragraph “19” of Count I of

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint except admits that the written limited warranty of the vehicle’s

manufacturer accompanied the vehicle at the time of its original delivery but refers to the trial

court questions regarding the terms and conditions of the written limited warranty.

20. FCA US LLC denies the allegations contained in paragraph “20” of Count I of