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
F LED
I
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA
cou
SANNTY OFSAN BE
EDRNAR N0
BERNARWNO nlsmlcr
ROBERTW. THOMPSON, Esq. (SBN 106411) JUL 18 202%
ANTHONY S. ORTIZ, Esq (SBN318474)
CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN
& CAUDILL, LLP
2601 Main Sweet, Suite 800
BY jjgym
Mé’nssk PEREZ, DEPUTY
Irvine, California 92614
Tel: (949) 261-2872
\DmfiOMkmNr—n
Fax: (949) 261-6060
Email: rthompson@ctsclaw.com
aortiz@ctsclaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant,
SUNRISE FORD, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
BILLY C. HENRY, Case No.2 CIVDS 1 822222
law stamidligéfé‘iifiixflflifi
Hon. Khymberli S. Apaloo
Plaintifi DEPARTMENT: $25
COMPLAINT DATE: August 23, 201 8
vs.
CTSC SUNRISE FORD, NC; FORD MOTOR DECLARATION OF RUBEN
NilAi-Mrfi'hww’mx
COMPANY; FORD MOTOR CREDIT FERNANDEZ IN SUPPORT OF SUNRISE
COMPANY; and DOES l through 50, FORD INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMIWARY
inclusive, JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
i SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Defendants.
NNNNNNNNNt—IHHI—Ap—HHHHH
oodmmwat—oxoooqo‘mpwpwc
I, RUBEN FERNANDEZ, declare as follows:
l. I am the Service Director of Sunrise Ford, Inc., a Califomia corporation and the
defendant herein (hereinafter referred to as “Sunrise”). As the Service Director of the dealership, I
am responsible for overseeing its operations in the service department, including its policies and
procedures, financial operations, repairs, and hiring and firing of employees. I have personal
knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration, and I could testify competently to them:
2. The facts contained herein are within my own personal knowledge and are based on
records of Sunrise of which I am familiar. Said records were prepared, generated, or received by
the personnel of Sunn'se in the ordinary course ofthe business at or near the time ofthe act, condition
_ 1 -
DECLARATION 0F RUBEN FERNANDEZ 1N SUPPORT 0F SUNRISE FORD mexs MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT 0R 1N THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
or event. If called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto.
3. Plaintiff delivered the Vehicle to Sunn'se for repairs to the Front Display one day
after the sale on April 21 2017.The Dealership attempted to fix the Front Display by performing a
,
factory reset, as recommended by Ford Motor Company (“Ford” ,
but to no avail. After further
\OOOQQUI-blNNr—a
inspection, the Dealership discovered for the first time that Ford manufactured the Vehicle with a
defective Front Controls Interface Module (“Module”), which controls the Front Display. The
Dealership notified Plaintiff that it would take additional time for the new part to be delivered by
Ford because Ford was experiencing a shortage in parts. A true and correct copy of the service
record relating to the repair of the Vehicle’s fiont display is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
pd
4. Plaintiff brought the Vehicle back to the Dealership on April 24, 2017, to complete
111"
I v—a
the repairs to the Front Display. (See Exhibit “A.”) Sunrise provided Plaintiff with a leaner vehicle
b-r
that he could use flee of charge during the period the Vehicle was being repaired.
Etiifiiiki&}d'&’
Document Filed Date
July 16, 2021
Case Filing Date
August 23, 2018
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
F LED I SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA cou SANNTY OFSAN BE EDRNAR N0 BERNARWNO nlsmlcr ROBERTW. THOMPSON, Esq. (SBN 106411) JUL 18 202% ANTHONY S. ORTIZ, Esq (SBN318474) CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN & CAUDILL, LLP 2601 Main Sweet, Suite 800 BY jjgym Mé’nssk PEREZ, DEPUTY Irvine, California 92614 Tel: (949) 261-2872 \DmfiOMkmNr—n Fax: (949) 261-6060 Email: rthompson@ctsclaw.com aortiz@ctsclaw.com Attorneys for Defendant, SUNRISE FORD, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO BILLY C. HENRY, Case No.2 CIVDS 1 822222 law stamidligéfé‘iifiixflflifi Hon. Khymberli S. Apaloo Plaintifi DEPARTMENT: $25 COMPLAINT DATE: August 23, 201 8 vs. CTSC SUNRISE FORD, NC; FORD MOTOR DECLARATION OF RUBEN NilAi-Mrfi'hww’mx COMPANY; FORD MOTOR CREDIT FERNANDEZ IN SUPPORT OF SUNRISE COMPANY; and DOES l through 50, FORD INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMIWARY inclusive, JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE i SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Defendants. NNNNNNNNNt—IHHI—Ap—HHHHH oodmmwat—oxoooqo‘mpwpwc I, RUBEN FERNANDEZ, declare as follows: l. I am the Service Director of Sunrise Ford, Inc., a Califomia corporation and the defendant herein (hereinafter referred to as “Sunrise”). As the Service Director of the dealership, I am responsible for overseeing its operations in the service department, including its policies and procedures, financial operations, repairs, and hiring and firing of employees. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration, and I could testify competently to them: 2. The facts contained herein are within my own personal knowledge and are based on records of Sunrise of which I am familiar. Said records were prepared, generated, or received by the personnel of Sunn'se in the ordinary course ofthe business at or near the time ofthe act, condition _ 1 - DECLARATION 0F RUBEN FERNANDEZ 1N SUPPORT 0F SUNRISE FORD mexs MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 0R 1N THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION or event. If called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto. 3. Plaintiff delivered the Vehicle to Sunn'se for repairs to the Front Display one day after the sale on April 21 2017.The Dealership attempted to fix the Front Display by performing a , factory reset, as recommended by Ford Motor Company (“Ford” , but to no avail. After further \OOOQQUI-blNNr—a inspection, the Dealership discovered for the first time that Ford manufactured the Vehicle with a defective Front Controls Interface Module (“Module”), which controls the Front Display. The Dealership notified Plaintiff that it would take additional time for the new part to be delivered by Ford because Ford was experiencing a shortage in parts. A true and correct copy of the service record relating to the repair of the Vehicle’s fiont display is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” pd 4. Plaintiff brought the Vehicle back to the Dealership on April 24, 2017, to complete 111" I v—a the repairs to the Front Display. (See Exhibit “A.”) Sunrise provided Plaintiff with a leaner vehicle b-r that he could use flee of charge during the period the Vehicle was being repaired. Etiifiiiki&}d'&’