Preview
©RflGMNW
ROBERT W. THOMPSON, Esq. (SBN 10641 1)
JIWON MICHAEL SHIN, Esq. (SBN 320504) F l L E D
CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
CO
&CAUDILL,LL1.> amazssAzAnweggrsAg°¢¢°
2601 Mam Street,
Sulte 800 _
92614
Irvine, California APR 2 8 2022
Tel: (949) 261-2872
Fax: (949) 261-6060
©00fl0\UI#UJN’—‘
BY .
;x.,
Email:rthompson@ctsclaw.com
AMBER Ml a DEPUTY ‘N
mshin@ctsclaw.com w
Attorneys for Defendant, I'd
SUNRISE FORD, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
LU“
&,QXUD£U,
BILLY C. HENRY, Case No.: CIVDSl822222
JUDGE: Hon. Khymberli S. Apaloo
$1I‘JKMAN Plaintiff, DEPARTMENT: $25
COMPLAINT DATE: August 23, 2018
VS.
'I'I‘KjME‘SQN‘
DEFENDANT SUNRISE FORD, INCRS
SUNRISE FORD INC 4 FORD MOTOR
a
0 PPOSITION T0 PLAI NTIFF’s MOTI O N
COMPANY; FORD MOTOR CREDIT FOR LEAVE T0 FILE SECOND
AHAN
COMPANY- and DOES 1 through 50
CAI}
inclusive
’ ’
AMENDED COMPLAINT
NNNNNNNNNt—I’dr—Ip—Iu—Ip—tu—AHHH
Defendants. Date: May 4, 2022
Time: 9:00 a.m.
OONQMJ>WNHO©OOQOM#WNHO
Location: Dept. $25
Defendant SUNRISE FORD, INC. (“Defendant” or “Sunrise”) opposes Plaintiff’s Motion
for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint as follows:
I. SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises from the purchase of a 2017 Ford Explorer, VIN 1FM5K8HT8HGC21924
(the “Subject Vehicle”) by Plaintiff Billy C. Henry (“Plaintiff’ or “Henry”) from Sunrise in April
2017, for $61,729.45. Plaintiff received a $1,000 manufacturer’s rebate and paid a $26,000 down
payment (comprised of $20,000 cash and $6,000 credit for his trade-in) and financed the remaining
DEFENDANT SUNRISE FORD, l'NC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 balance through Defendant Ford Motor Credit Company (“FMCC”).
While test driving the Subject Vehicle, Plaintiff and Defendant noticed that the Front
AWN Controls Interface Module (“Front Display”), which controls the radio, rearview camera, HVAC
system, and other electronic features, was defective. Nonetheless, Plaintiff agreed to purchase the
Subject Vehicle based on Defendant’s representation that they would repair the Front Display at no
extra charge to Plaintiff. Having seen and repaired similar issues quickly in other vehicles like the
\OOOVQUI
Subject Vehicle, Dealer represented the repair would only take 15 minutes.
Plaintiffdelivered the Subj ect Vehicle to Sunrise for repairs the day after the sale on April 21 ,
2017. Sunrise attempted to repair the front control display by performing various steps
10 recommended by the manufacturer but to no avail. Sunrise discovered that new components parts
343’
1 1 were needed from the manufacturer in order to repair the Front Display. Plaintiffbrought the Subject
éfiflkilfiluy
12 Vehicle back t0 Sunrise on April 24, 20 1 7, and was told it would take several days for the component
_______
13 part ordered from the manufacturer to arrive, so Sunrise provided Plaintiff with a rental car while
$1ERMAN
14 the Subject Vehicle was being repaired.
‘IHNIHXV
15 On May 1, 2017, before the necessary parts were delivered from Ford, Plaintiff contacted
16 Sunrise t0 complain about how long it was taking to complete the repair. On May 9, 201 7, Plaintiff
CAIUKHAN
17 demanded that Sunrise unwind the deal and return his trade-in Vehicle, but Sunrise declined.
18 On or about May 12, 201 7, Sunrise received a new Front Display from Ford and installed it
19 0n the Subject Vehicle. When contacted, Plaintiff refused to pick up the Subject Vehicle.
20 Plaintiff alleges that he received a letter from FMCC on May 17, 2017 stating that it was
21 unable to extend credit under the terms originally presented at the time of the sale and that a
22 counteroffer was being proposed. Plaintiff alleges that he received a second letter from FMCC on
23 June 1, 20 l 7 stating that Plaintiff” s credit application was incomplete and they were unable to extend
24 credit to Plaintiff to complete the purchase of the Subject Vehicle. Sunrise is informed and believes
25 the loan was funded approximately 7 days after Plaintiff signed the contract.
26 Plaintiff defaulted on the loan by failing to make monthly payments due on June 4, 2017 and
27 July 4, 2017 as required under the terms 0f the contract. As a result, 0n July 27, 2017, FMCC
28 repossessed the Subject Vehicle, which had been abandoned by Plaintiff on Sunrise’s lot, and sold
DEFENDANT SUNRISE FORD, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Preview
©RflGMNW ROBERT W. THOMPSON, Esq. (SBN 10641 1) JIWON MICHAEL SHIN, Esq. (SBN 320504) F l L E D CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA CO &CAUDILL,LL1.> amazssAzAnweggrsAg°¢¢° 2601 Mam Street, Sulte 800 _ 92614 Irvine, California APR 2 8 2022 Tel: (949) 261-2872 Fax: (949) 261-6060 ©00fl0\UI#UJN’—‘ BY . ;x., Email:rthompson@ctsclaw.com AMBER Ml a DEPUTY ‘N mshin@ctsclaw.com w Attorneys for Defendant, I'd SUNRISE FORD, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO LU“ &,QXUD£U, BILLY C. HENRY, Case No.: CIVDSl822222 JUDGE: Hon. Khymberli S. Apaloo $1I‘JKMAN Plaintiff, DEPARTMENT: $25 COMPLAINT DATE: August 23, 2018 VS. 'I'I‘KjME‘SQN‘ DEFENDANT SUNRISE FORD, INCRS SUNRISE FORD INC 4 FORD MOTOR a 0 PPOSITION T0 PLAI NTIFF’s MOTI O N COMPANY; FORD MOTOR CREDIT FOR LEAVE T0 FILE SECOND AHAN COMPANY- and DOES 1 through 50 CAI} inclusive ’ ’ AMENDED COMPLAINT NNNNNNNNNt—I’dr—Ip—Iu—Ip—tu—AHHH Defendants. Date: May 4, 2022 Time: 9:00 a.m. OONQMJ>WNHO©OOQOM#WNHO Location: Dept. $25 Defendant SUNRISE FORD, INC. (“Defendant” or “Sunrise”) opposes Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint as follows: I. SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This action arises from the purchase of a 2017 Ford Explorer, VIN 1FM5K8HT8HGC21924 (the “Subject Vehicle”) by Plaintiff Billy C. Henry (“Plaintiff’ or “Henry”) from Sunrise in April 2017, for $61,729.45. Plaintiff received a $1,000 manufacturer’s rebate and paid a $26,000 down payment (comprised of $20,000 cash and $6,000 credit for his trade-in) and financed the remaining DEFENDANT SUNRISE FORD, l'NC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 balance through Defendant Ford Motor Credit Company (“FMCC”). While test driving the Subject Vehicle, Plaintiff and Defendant noticed that the Front AWN Controls Interface Module (“Front Display”), which controls the radio, rearview camera, HVAC system, and other electronic features, was defective. Nonetheless, Plaintiff agreed to purchase the Subject Vehicle based on Defendant’s representation that they would repair the Front Display at no extra charge to Plaintiff. Having seen and repaired similar issues quickly in other vehicles like the \OOOVQUI Subject Vehicle, Dealer represented the repair would only take 15 minutes. Plaintiffdelivered the Subj ect Vehicle to Sunrise for repairs the day after the sale on April 21 , 2017. Sunrise attempted to repair the front control display by performing various steps 10 recommended by the manufacturer but to no avail. Sunrise discovered that new components parts 343’ 1 1 were needed from the manufacturer in order to repair the Front Display. Plaintiffbrought the Subject éfiflkilfiluy 12 Vehicle back t0 Sunrise on April 24, 20 1 7, and was told it would take several days for the component _______ 13 part ordered from the manufacturer to arrive, so Sunrise provided Plaintiff with a rental car while $1ERMAN 14 the Subject Vehicle was being repaired. ‘IHNIHXV 15 On May 1, 2017, before the necessary parts were delivered from Ford, Plaintiff contacted 16 Sunrise t0 complain about how long it was taking to complete the repair. On May 9, 201 7, Plaintiff CAIUKHAN 17 demanded that Sunrise unwind the deal and return his trade-in Vehicle, but Sunrise declined. 18 On or about May 12, 201 7, Sunrise received a new Front Display from Ford and installed it 19 0n the Subject Vehicle. When contacted, Plaintiff refused to pick up the Subject Vehicle. 20 Plaintiff alleges that he received a letter from FMCC on May 17, 2017 stating that it was 21 unable to extend credit under the terms originally presented at the time of the sale and that a 22 counteroffer was being proposed. Plaintiff alleges that he received a second letter from FMCC on 23 June 1, 20 l 7 stating that Plaintiff” s credit application was incomplete and they were unable to extend 24 credit to Plaintiff to complete the purchase of the Subject Vehicle. Sunrise is informed and believes 25 the loan was funded approximately 7 days after Plaintiff signed the contract. 26 Plaintiff defaulted on the loan by failing to make monthly payments due on June 4, 2017 and 27 July 4, 2017 as required under the terms 0f the contract. As a result, 0n July 27, 2017, FMCC 28 repossessed the Subject Vehicle, which had been abandoned by Plaintiff on Sunrise’s lot, and sold DEFENDANT SUNRISE FORD, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT