On August 23, 2018 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Henry, Billy C,
Sunrise Ford Inc A California Corporation,
and
Bruncati, Daniel,
Bruncati, James,
Bruncati, Robert,
Does 2 Through 50,
Ford Motor Company,
Ford Motor Credit Company,
Sunrise Ford, Inc.,
for Business Tort
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
D4I2BZ2U22 12 D1
:
“WXII P 040.3060
1 ROBERT W. THOMPSON, Esq. (SBN 10641 l)
JIWON MICHAEL SHIN, Esq. (SEN 320504)
2 CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN
CAUDILL, LLP
3 26% 1 Main 800
Strcet, Suite 3U
92614
Irvine, California cgfig'fingugrE
SAN BERNAOF SAN
D
(949) 261-2872 cAL/FoH
4 Tel: ‘RDWO g;
Iv'ZNSRDwé’"
Fax: (949) 261-6060
IVISION
Email: rthompson@ctsclaw.com
,4
5 pR 2 8
mshin@ctsc1aw,com 2022
5?”
6 .
Attorneys for Defendant,
7 SUNRISE FORD. INC.
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
11
a _
B g
12 BILLY C. HENRY, Case No.: CIVD81822222
C6 ¢
I JUDGE: Hon. Khymberli S. Apaloo
..............
13
Plaintiff, DEPARTMENT: $25
14 COMPLAINT DATE: August 23, 2018
vs.
15 DEFENDANT SUNRISE FORD, INC.’S
SUNRISE FORD INC FORD ’ -; MOTOR REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION T0
g COMPANY; FORD MOTOR CREDIT
16 BIFURCATE TRIAL 0F PLAINTIFF'S
g 90M?ANY= and DOES thmugh 50’ 1
CLAIMS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
17 Incluszve,
é
[Filed concurrently with Declaration ofJiwon
18
Defendants. Michael Shin, in Support ofDefendant '3
19 Reply]
2° Date; May 4, 2022
Time: 9:00 am.
21 Location: Dept. 325
22
23
Defendant, SUNRISE FORD, Inc. (“Defendant”) hereby submits the following Reply to
24
HENRY’S (“Plaintiff") Opposition to Defendant Sunrise Ford, Inc.’s Motion t0
Plaintiff BILLY C.
25
Bifurcate Trial of Plaintiff’s Claims for Punitive
Damages.
26
//
27
”
28 - 1 -
MOTION To BIFURCATE TRIAL 0F
DEFENDANT SUNRISE FORD, INCRS REPLY 1N SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS FOR PUNIT IVE DAMAGES
D4f28x' 2022 12:01 “M0 P.041J'DBD
MEMORANDUM QF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTQRY
a very small and simple consumer claim that arose from
Plaintiff’s vehicle
This action is
conditions of the Retail
purchase from Defendant, in April of 2017. Pursuant to the terms and
Installment Sale Contract that Plaintiff signed, Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle for
\OOO'Qth-hLDN
$61 ,729.45, received a $1,000 manufacturer’s rebate and paid a $26,00
0 down payment (comprised
the remaining balance through Co-
of $20,000 cash and $6,000 credit for his tradc-in) and financed
defendant Ford Motor Credit Company. 0n May 15, 2019, Co-defendants Ford Motor Credit
f's
Company and Ford Motor Company paid Plaintiff $53,200 and completely rescinded Plaintif
and dismiss the claims against them. Plaintiff has recovered
10 purchase of the Subj ect Vehicle, to settle
. Plaintiff
ll $27,200 more fiom the settlement than what he paid for the purchase ofthe Subject Vehicle
for damages and fees, if any, will be
12 has been fully compensated and recovery against Defendant
WWWWGLCWLM
13 offset by proceeds fmm this settlement.
of action for financial elder abuse
CTSCElaw
14 0n February 22, 2022, Plaintiff‘s first and second causes
and conversion were dismissed by summaxy judgment.
The remaining two causes of action are for
15
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) and for Tort in Essence. The CLRA
16 violations of the
in connection with the sale, and
l7 claim is based on alleged misrepresentations by Sunrise employees
Finance Act
18 the Tort in Essence claim is based on alleged violations of the Automobile Sales
Plaintiff s vehicle purchase.
19 (“ASFA”) based on a typo on the Pre-Contract Disclosure involved with
Defendant was prepared to go to trial on May 9, 2022, on the remaining two causes of action.
20
then filed a doe amendment adding
21 Plaintiff, having a significantly diminishcd claim going into trial,
ing two claims, and a motion for
22 one of Sunrise’s individual owners as a defendant on the remain
int alleges a cause
23 leave to file a second amended complaint. The proposed second amended compla
given their sale of the dealership last year
24 of action for fraudulent conveyance by Sunrise’s owners,
25 to a third party.
26
27
28
-2-
MOTION T0 BIFURCATE TRIAL 0F
DEFENDANT SUNRISE FORD, INC.’S REPLY TN SUPPORT 0F
PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Preview
D4I2BZ2U22 12 D1 : “WXII P 040.3060 1 ROBERT W. THOMPSON, Esq. (SBN 10641 l) JIWON MICHAEL SHIN, Esq. (SEN 320504) 2 CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN CAUDILL, LLP 3 26% 1 Main 800 Strcet, Suite 3U 92614 Irvine, California cgfig'fingugrE SAN BERNAOF SAN D (949) 261-2872 cAL/FoH 4 Tel: ‘RDWO g; Iv'ZNSRDwé’" Fax: (949) 261-6060 IVISION Email: rthompson@ctsclaw.com ,4 5 pR 2 8 mshin@ctsc1aw,com 2022 5?” 6 . Attorneys for Defendant, 7 SUNRISE FORD. INC. 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO 11 a _ B g 12 BILLY C. HENRY, Case No.: CIVD81822222 C6 ¢ I JUDGE: Hon. Khymberli S. Apaloo .............. 13 Plaintiff, DEPARTMENT: $25 14 COMPLAINT DATE: August 23, 2018 vs. 15 DEFENDANT SUNRISE FORD, INC.’S SUNRISE FORD INC FORD ’ -; MOTOR REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION T0 g COMPANY; FORD MOTOR CREDIT 16 BIFURCATE TRIAL 0F PLAINTIFF'S g 90M?ANY= and DOES thmugh 50’ 1 CLAIMS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 17 Incluszve, é [Filed concurrently with Declaration ofJiwon 18 Defendants. Michael Shin, in Support ofDefendant '3 19 Reply] 2° Date; May 4, 2022 Time: 9:00 am. 21 Location: Dept. 325 22 23 Defendant, SUNRISE FORD, Inc. (“Defendant”) hereby submits the following Reply to 24 HENRY’S (“Plaintiff") Opposition to Defendant Sunrise Ford, Inc.’s Motion t0 Plaintiff BILLY C. 25 Bifurcate Trial of Plaintiff’s Claims for Punitive Damages. 26 // 27 ” 28 - 1 - MOTION To BIFURCATE TRIAL 0F DEFENDANT SUNRISE FORD, INCRS REPLY 1N SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS FOR PUNIT IVE DAMAGES D4f28x' 2022 12:01 “M0 P.041J'DBD MEMORANDUM QF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTQRY a very small and simple consumer claim that arose from Plaintiff’s vehicle This action is conditions of the Retail purchase from Defendant, in April of 2017. Pursuant to the terms and Installment Sale Contract that Plaintiff signed, Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle for \OOO'Qth-hLDN $61 ,729.45, received a $1,000 manufacturer’s rebate and paid a $26,00 0 down payment (comprised the remaining balance through Co- of $20,000 cash and $6,000 credit for his tradc-in) and financed defendant Ford Motor Credit Company. 0n May 15, 2019, Co-defendants Ford Motor Credit f's Company and Ford Motor Company paid Plaintiff $53,200 and completely rescinded Plaintif and dismiss the claims against them. Plaintiff has recovered 10 purchase of the Subj ect Vehicle, to settle . Plaintiff ll $27,200 more fiom the settlement than what he paid for the purchase ofthe Subject Vehicle for damages and fees, if any, will be 12 has been fully compensated and recovery against Defendant WWWWGLCWLM 13 offset by proceeds fmm this settlement. of action for financial elder abuse CTSCElaw 14 0n February 22, 2022, Plaintiff‘s first and second causes and conversion were dismissed by summaxy judgment. The remaining two causes of action are for 15 Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) and for Tort in Essence. The CLRA 16 violations of the in connection with the sale, and l7 claim is based on alleged misrepresentations by Sunrise employees Finance Act 18 the Tort in Essence claim is based on alleged violations of the Automobile Sales Plaintiff s vehicle purchase. 19 (“ASFA”) based on a typo on the Pre-Contract Disclosure involved with Defendant was prepared to go to trial on May 9, 2022, on the remaining two causes of action. 20 then filed a doe amendment adding 21 Plaintiff, having a significantly diminishcd claim going into trial, ing two claims, and a motion for 22 one of Sunrise’s individual owners as a defendant on the remain int alleges a cause 23 leave to file a second amended complaint. The proposed second amended compla given their sale of the dealership last year 24 of action for fraudulent conveyance by Sunrise’s owners, 25 to a third party. 26 27 28 -2- MOTION T0 BIFURCATE TRIAL 0F DEFENDANT SUNRISE FORD, INC.’S REPLY TN SUPPORT 0F PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES