VACHON LAW FIRM Michael R. Vachon, Esq. (SBN ) 0 Via del Campo, Suite San Diego, California Tel.: () -0 Fax: () - Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER EDGARDO RODRIGUEZ, an individual, v. Plaintiff CAPO MOTORS, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through, Defendants. Case No.: 0--00 FOR: 1. VIOLATION OF CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT (INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ONLY);. INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION;. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION;. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY;. UNFAIR COMPETITION (BUS. & PROF. CODE SECTION 0) -1-
SUMMARY 1. This lawsuit arises out of Plaintiff s purchase of a so-called certified used car. Defendant Capo Motors, LLC (a car dealership) tricked Plaintiff into buying a used 0 Mitsubishi Lancer by telling him that it was certified, had been rigorously inspected, and was in excellent mechanical condition. In reality however, the Dealership knew that the Mitsubishi Lancer had been in a severe accident in which it had sustained frame damage.. Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge s conduct amounts to common law fraud, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and unfair competition. Plaintiff is entitled to rescind the Mitsubishi Lancer s purchase contract, to recover compensatory and punitive damages, and to an injunction preventing Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge from engaging in future illegal conduct. California. PARTIES. Plaintiff Edgardo Rodriguez is an individual residing in Baldwin Park,. Defendant Capo Motors, LLC is a California limited liability company that at all material times has been doing business at 1 Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, California under the fictitious business name Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge Capistrano. Defendant Capo Motors, LLC is hereafter referred to as Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge.. Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities, whether corporate, partnership, associate, individual, or otherwise, of defendants sued herein as Does 1 through, inclusive, and thus name them under the provisions of Section of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Defendants Does 1 through are in some manner --
responsible for the acts set forth herein, and are legally liable to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will set forth the true names of the fictitiously-named defendants together with appropriate charging allegations when ascertained.. All acts of corporate employees were authorized or ratified by an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporate employer. FACTS. Plaintiff alleges as follows, on information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:. On or about August,, Plaintiff visited Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge at its San Juan Capistrano dealership lot and viewed a used 0 Mitsubishi Lancer (the Mitsubishi Lancer ). Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge represented both orally and in writing that the Mitsubishi Lancer was a certified used vehicle, that it had been rigorously inspected, that its vehicle history had been checked, that it was in excellent mechanical condition, and that it had a clean history. Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge explicitly and specifically represented that the Mitsubishi Lancer had not previously sustained frame damage.. Relying upon Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge s representations, Plaintiff purchased the Mitsubishi Lancer from Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge.. After Plaintiff had purchased the Mitsubishi Lancer, Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge gave Plaintiff a document stating that the Mitsubishi Lancer had been sold to him on an as is basis.. Plaintiff subsequently discovered that the Mitsubishi Lancer had been in a severe collision, and had sustained frame damage.. Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge knew about this pre-existing damage, but deliberately concealed it from and did not disclose it to Plaintiff. --
. Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge s above-stated conduct was malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Consumers Legal Remedies Act - Injunctive Relief Only. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through.. The Mitsubishi Lancer is a good under the CLRA that was bought for use primarily for personal, family or household purposes.. Plaintiff is a consumer under the CLRA.. The advertisement and the sale of the Mitsubishi Lancer to Plaintiff are transactions under the CLRA.. The CLRA prohibits numerous unlawful business acts, including: (i) misrepresenting the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services; (ii) representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have or that a person has sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection which he or she does not have; (iii) representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are another; (iv) misrepresenting the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods; (v) advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised; (vi) representing that a transaction confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which are prohibited by law; (vii) inserting an unconscionable provision into a contract; (viii) representing that a used vehicle is certified if a car dealer knows or should know that the vehicle has sustained frame damage; and (ix) misrepresenting that a certified used --
automobile is being sold on an as is basis. The CLRA also prohibits the omission of statements that a person has a legal duty to make.. Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge had a duty to disclose the known accident damage because (1) such disclosure was necessary in order to make its other statements not misleading; () it was a known material fact; () Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge knew that it had exclusive knowledge that was not accessible to Plaintiff; and () it was reasonable for Plaintiff to expect disclosure of such facts.. Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge violated the CLRA by: (1) misrepresenting the mechanical condition of the Mitsubishi Lancer; () concealing and failing to disclose that the Mitsubishi Lancer had previously been in a material accident; () concealing and failing to disclose that the Mitsubishi Lancer had previously sustained frame damage; () representing that the Mitsubishi Lancer was a certified used automobile even though Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep knew or should have known that it had previously sustained frame damage; and () misrepresenting that the Mitsubishi Lancer was being sold to Plaintiff on an as is basis.. Plaintiff is concurrently serving Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge with a CLRA notification and demand letter via certified mail, return receipt requested. The notice letter sets forth the relevant facts, notifies Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge of its CLRA violations, and requests that Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge promptly remedy those violations.. Under the CLRA, a plaintiff may without prior notification file a complaint alleging violations of the CLRA that seeks injunctive relief only. Then, if the defendant does not remedy the CLRA violations within 0 days of notification, the plaintiff may amend her or his CLRA causes of action without leave of court to add claims for --
damages. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to add damages claims if Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge does not remedy its violations within the statutory period.. Under the CLRA, Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting practices that violate the CLRA.. Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge has an illegal pattern and practice of: (1) misrepresenting the mechanical condition of vehicles that it sells to the public; () concealing and failing to disclose known accident damage; () advertising and selling vehicles as certified which it knows or should know they have sustained frame damage; and () misrepresenting that it is selling certified used automobiles on an as is basis.. Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction that compels Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge to notify all consumers who have been victims of the abovedescribed illegal conduct, and enjoining Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge from such further acts of illegal conduct... Plaintiff is also entitled to recover his attorney s fees, costs, and expenses. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional Misrepresentation. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through. At the time of purchase, and afterwards, Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge made the misrepresentations set forth above. These misrepresentations included, but are not limited to the following: (1) that the Mitsubishi Lancer had been inspected and was in excellent condition; () that the Mitsubishi Lancer qualified for the label of a certified used vehicle; () that the Mitsubishi Lancer had not previously been in any accidents; () that the Mitsubishi Lancer had a clean history; () that the --
Mitsubishi Lancer had not previously sustained frame damage; and () that the Mitsubishi Lancer had been sold to Plaintiff on an as is basis.. Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge omitted from the statements it made material facts, the disclosure of which was necessary, (1) in order to make its other statements not misleading; () because they were known materials facts; () because Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge knew that it had exclusive knowledge that was not accessible to Plaintiff; and () because it was reasonable for Plaintiff to expect disclosure of such facts. These omissions include, but are not limited to the following: (1) that the Mitsubishi Lancer had previously been in a material accident; () that the Mitsubishi Lancer had sustained frame damage; () that the Mitsubishi Lancer does not have a clean history; and () that the sale of the Mitsubishi Lancer to Plaintiff was accompanied by Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge s implied warranty of merchantability. 0. At all times Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge either had actual or constructive notice of the true facts but nonetheless intentionally or recklessly concealed these facts from Plaintiff. 1. Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge made these representations and omitted material facts with the intent to defraud Plaintiff and to induce Plaintiff to purchase the Mitsubishi Lancer and pay an inflated sales price. At the time Plaintiff purchased the Mitsubishi Lancer he did not know, or have reason to know, that Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge was making false and misleading representations and had omitted material facts. Plaintiff acted in justifiable reliance upon the truth of the representations which misled them as to the nature and extent of the facts concealed. Plaintiff was justified in his reliance, as Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge held itself --
out as professionals in the automotive sales industry, and Plaintiff had no reason to doubt such representations.. As a direct and proximate result of Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge s fraudulent representations and omissions of material facts, Plaintiff suffered damages, including actual, general, consequential and incidental damages according to proof at trial.. Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages.. Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge committed fraud in the inducement of the purchase contract for the Mitsubishi Lancer, and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to rescission and restitution in an amount according to proof at trial. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Misrepresentation. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through.. As an alternative to Plaintiff s cause of action for Intentional Misrepresentation, Plaintiff alleges that Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge's misrepresentations were made negligently, if not intentionally.. The representations made by Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge were not true.. Regardless of its actual belief, Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge made the representations without any reasonable grounds for believing them to be true.. Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge failed to exercise due care in ascertaining the accuracy of the representations made to Plaintiff. --
0. Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge made the representations for the purpose of inducing Plaintiff to rely upon them, and to act or refrain from acting in reliance thereon. 1. Plaintiff was unaware of the falsity of the representations and acted in reliance upon the truth of those representations, and was justified in relying upon those representations.. As a direct and proximate result of Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge s negligent misrepresentations of material fact, Plaintiff suffered damages, including actual, consequential, and incidental damages according to proof of trial.. Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages.. Plaintiff hereby alleges fraud in the inducement to enter into the sales contract, and therefore are entitled to rescission and restitution in an amount according to proof at trial. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of Implied Warranty - Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through.. Plaintiff s purchase of the Mitsubishi Lancer was accompanied by Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge's implied warranty of merchantability.. Under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the California Lemon Law ) the implied warranty of merchantability means and includes that the goods will comply with each of the following requirements: (1) they would pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; () they are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; () they are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled; --
and () they conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.. The fact that the Mitsubishi Lancer was previously involved in a severe accident that caused structural damage constitutes a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the California Lemon Law because the Mitsubishi Lancer (1) would not pass without objection in the trade under the contract description, () was not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used, () was not adequately contained, packaged, and labeled, and () did not conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.. Plaintiff has rightfully rejected and/or justifiably revoked acceptance of the Mitsubishi Lancer under the California Lemon Law, and is entitled to rescind the purchase contract and to restitution of all money paid towards the purchase contract. 0. Plaintiff has been proximately damaged by Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge s failure to comply with its obligations under the implied warranty of merchantability. 1. Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies provided in California Civil Code section, including his attorney's fees, costs, and expenses. through 1. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unfair Competition. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1. Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge s acts, omissions, misrepresentations, practices, and non-disclosures constitute unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and practices within the meaning of California Business & Professions Code Sections 0 et seq. --
. Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge has engaged in unlawful business acts and practices by: (1) misrepresenting the mechanical condition of vehicles that it sells to the public; () concealing and failing to disclose known accident damage; () advertising and selling vehicles as certified which it knows or should know have sustained frame damage; and () misrepresenting that it is selling certified used automobiles on an as is basis. These acts and practices were intended to and did violate California Civil Code Section 0 et seq., the CLRA, the California Lemon Law, and Vehicle Code Section 1... Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge has also engaged in fraudulent business acts or practices in that the representations and omissions of material fact described above have a tendency and likelihood to deceive purchasers of these vehicles and the general public.. Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge has also engaged in unfair business acts or practices in that the justification for selling and leasing vehicles based on the misrepresentations and omissions of material fact delineated above is outweighed by the gravity of the resulting harm, particularly considering the available alternatives, and offends public policy, is immoral, unscrupulous, unethical, and offensive, or causes substantial injury to consumers.. The above described unlawful, fraudulent, or unfair business acts and practices conducted by Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge continue to this day and present a threat to Plaintiff and the general public in that Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge has failed to publicly acknowledge the wrongfulness of its actions and provide full equitable injunctive and monetary relief as required by the statute.. Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Section, Plaintiff seeks an order of this Court requiring Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge to --
immediately cease such acts of unfair competition, requiring Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep to notify previous victims of the unlawful, fraudulent, and/or unfair business acts and practices alleged in this Complaint, enjoining Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge from continuing to conduct business via the unlawful, fraudulent, and/or unfair business acts and practices set forth in this Complaint, and ordering Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge to engage in a corrective notice and advertising campaign. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows as appropriate for the particular causes of action: 1. For the declaratory, equitable, and/or injunctive relief as requested above;. For rescission of the $,1.0 purchase contract for the Mitsubishi Lancer and restitution of all money paid towards that automobile;. For general damages in an amount to be proven at trial;. For punitive damages;. For pre judgment interest at the legal rate;. For reasonable attorneys fees, costs of suit, and out of pocket litigation expenses; and. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. Date: October, VACHON LAW FIRM Attorney for Plaintiff Edgardo Rodriguez _/s/michael R. Vachon, Esq. Michael R. Vachon, Esq. --