LAM, et al. v. TESLA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION Document 1: Document

Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
Case No. 23CV035160
Filed June 5, 2023

Complaint Filed by: Kevin Jian Feng Lam (Plaintiff); Chunhua Ruan (Plaintiff) As to: TESLA, INC., a Delaware Corporation (Defendant)

BackBack to LAM, et al. v. TESLA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.

  Formatted Text Tab Overlap Raw Text Right End
Page 1
QUILL & ARROW, LLP
Kevin Y. Jacobson, Esq. (SBN 320532)
kjacobson@quillarrowlaw.com
Gregory Sogoyan, Esq. (SBN 316832)
Gsogoyan@quillarrowlaw.com
e-service@quillarrowlaw.com
10900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite Los Angeles, CA, Telephone:
(310) 933-Facsimile:
(310) 889-Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
KEVIN JIAN FENG LAM
AND CHUNHUA RUAN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

KEVIN JIAN FENG LAM, an individual,
and CHUNHUA RUAN, an individual,

COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TESLA, INC. d/b/a TESLA MOTORS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No.:
Unlimited Jurisdiction
1. VIOLATION OF SONG-BEVERLY
ACT - BREACH OF EXPRESS
WARRANTY
2. VIOLATION OF SONG-BEVERLY
ACT - BREACH OF IMPLIED
WARRANTY
3. VIOLATION OF THE SONGBEVERLY ACT SECTION 1793.
COMPLAINT
Page 2
Plaintiffs, KEVIN JIAN FENG LAM, an individual, and CHUNHUA RUAN, an individual

(“Plaintiffs”), allege as follows against Defendant TESLA, INC. d/b/a TESLA MOTORS, INC., a

Delaware Corporation (“TESLA MOTORS, INC.”), and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, on

information and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry under the circumstances:

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1.
by jury in this action.

Plaintiffs, KEVIN JIAN FENG LAM and CHUNHUA RUAN, hereby demand trial
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
2.
Plaintiffs, KEVIN JIAN FENG LAM and CHUNHUA RUAN, are individuals
residing in the City of San Leandro, State of California.
3.
Defendant, TESLA MOTORS, INC., is and was a Delaware Corporation operating
and doing business in the State of California.
4.
These causes of action arise out of warranty and repair obligations of TESLA

MOTORS, INC. in connection with a vehicle Plaintiffs purchased and for which TESLA

MOTORS, INC. issued a written warranty. The warranty was not issued by the selling dealership.

5.
Plaintiffs do not know the true names and capacities, whether corporate, partnership,

associate, individual, or otherwise of Defendant issued herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive,

under the provisions of section 474 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Defendant Does
through 10, inclusive, are in some manner responsible for the acts, occurrences, and transactions

set forth herein, and are legally liable to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this

Complaint to set forth the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named Defendant, together

with appropriate charging allegations, when ascertained.

6.
All acts of corporate employees as alleged were authorized or ratified by an officer,
director, or managing agent of the corporate employer.
7.
Each Defendant, whether actually or fictitiously named herein, was the principal,

agent (actual or ostensible), or employee of each other Defendant, and in acting as such principal

or within the course and scope of such employment or agency, took some part in the acts and

omissions hereinafter set forth by reason of which each Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs for the relief
-2-
COMPLAINT
Page 3
prayed for herein.

8.
On September 23, 2022, Plaintiffs purchased a 2022 Tesla Model Y, having VIN

No.: 7SAYGDEF5NF561891 ("the Subject Vehicle”). These causes of action arise out of warranty

and repair obligations of TESLA MOTORS, INC. in connection with a vehicle that Plaintiffs

purchased and for which TESLA MOTORS, INC. issued a written warranty. The warranty was not

issued by the selling dealership.

9.
TESLA MOTORS, INC. warranted the Subject Vehicle and agreed to preserve or

maintain the utility or performance of Plaintiffs’ vehicle or to provide compensation if there was a

failure in such utility or performance. In connection with the purchase, Plaintiffs received various

warranties, inter alia, a 4-year/50,000 mile express bumper to bumper warranty, a 8-year/120,
mile powertrain warranty which, inter alia, covers the engine and the transmission, as well as

various emissions warranties that exceed the time and mileage limitations of the bumper to bumper

and powertrain warranties.

10.
The Subject Vehicle was delivered to Plaintiffs with serious defects and

nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty

including, but not limited to, suspension, transmission, engine, electrical, and structural system

defects.

11.
Plaintiffs hereby revoke acceptance of the sales contract.

12.
Pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (hereinafter the “Act”) Civil

Code sections 1790 et seq. the Subject Vehicle constitutes “consumer goods” used primarily for

family or household purposes, and Plaintiffs have used the vehicle primarily for those purposes.

13.
Plaintiffs are the “buyers” of consumer goods under the Act.

14.
Defendant, TESLA MOTORS, INC., is a "manufacturer" and/or “distributor" under

the Act.
15.
Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury in this action.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty

16.
Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in the
-3-
COMPLAINT
Page 4
preceding and succeeding paragraphs as though herein fully restated and re-alleged.
17.
The Subject Vehicle was sold to Plaintiffs with express warranties that the Subject

Vehicle would be free from defects in materials, nonconformity, or workmanship during the

applicable warranty period and to the extent that the Subject Vehicle had defects, Defendant

TESLA MOTORS, INC. would repair the defects.

18.
The Subject Vehicle was delivered to Plaintiffs with serious defects and

nonconformities to warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty

including, but not limited to, suspension, transmission, engine, electrical, and structural system

defects.

19.
Pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (hereinafter the “Act”) Civil

Code sections 1790 et seq. the vehicle constitutes “consumer goods” used primarily for family or

household purposes, and Plaintiffs have used the Subject Vehicle primarily for those purposes.

20.
Plaintiffs are the “buyers” of consumer goods under the Act.

21.
Defendant, TESLA MOTORS, INC., is a "manufacturer" and/or “distributor" under

the Act.
22.
The foregoing defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves in

the Subject Vehicle within the applicable express warranty period. The nonconformities

substantially impair the use, value, and/or safety of the vehicle.

23.
Plaintiffs delivered the vehicle to an authorized TESLA MOTORS, INC. repair
facility for repair of the nonconformities.
24.
Defendant was unable to conform Plaintiffs’ vehicle to the applicable express
warranty after a reasonable number of repair attempts.
25.
Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ entitlement, Defendant TESLA MOTORS, INC. has

failed to either promptly replace the new motor vehicle or to promptly make restitution in

accordance with the Song-Beverly Act.

26.
By failure of Defendant to remedy the defects as alleged above or to issue a refund
or replacement vehicle, Defendant is in breach of its obligations under the Song-Beverly Act.
27.
Under the Act, Plaintiffs are entitled to reimbursement of the price paid for the
-4-
COMPLAINT
Page 5
vehicle less that amount directly attributable to use by the Plaintiff prior to the first presentation of

the nonconformities.

28.
Plaintiffs are entitled to all incidental, consequential, and general damages resulting
from Defendant’s failure to comply with its obligations under the Song-Beverly Act.

29.
Plaintiffs are entitled under the Song-Beverly Act to recover as part of the judgment

a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, reasonably

incurred in connection with the commencement and prosecution of this action.

30.
Because Defendant willfully violated the Song-Beverly Act, Plaintiffs are entitled,

in addition to the amounts recovered, a civil penalty of up to two times the amount of actual

damages for TESLA MOTORS, INC.’s willful failure to comply with its responsibilities under the

Act.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty

31.
Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in the
preceding and succeeding paragraphs as though herein fully restated and re-alleged.
32.
TESLA MOTORS, INC. and its authorized dealership at which Plaintiffs purchased

the subject vehicle had reason to know the purpose of the Subject Vehicle at the time of sale of the

subject vehicle. The sale of the Subject Vehicle was accompanied by implied warranties provided

for under the law.

33.

Among other warranties, the sale of the Subject Vehicle was accompanied by an
implied warranty that the Subject vehicle was merchantable pursuant to Civil Code section 1792.
34.
Pursuant to Civil Code section 1791.1 (a), the implied warranty of merchantability

means and includes that the Vehicle will comply with each of the following requirements: (1) The

Vehicle will pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; (2) The Vehicle is

fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; (3) The Vehicle is adequately

contained, packaged, and labelled; (4) The Vehicle will conform to the promises or affirmations of

fact made on the container or label.

35.
The Subject Vehicle was not fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are
-5-
COMPLAINT
Page 6
used because it was equipped with one or more defective vehicle systems/components.
36.
The Subject Vehicle did not measure up to the promises or facts stated on the
container or label because it was equipped with one or more defective vehicle systems/components.
37.
The Subject Vehicle was not of the same quality as those generally accepted in the

trade because it was sold with one or more defective vehicle systems/components which manifested

as suspension, transmission, engine, electrical, and structural system defects.

38.
Upon information and belief, the defective vehicle systems and components were

present at the time of sale of the Subject Vehicle; thus, extending the duration of any implied

warranty under Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1304–1305 and other

applicable laws.
39.
Plaintiffs are entitled to justifiably revoke acceptance of the subject vehicle under
Civil Code, section 1794, et seq.

40.
Plaintiffs hereby revoke acceptance of the Subject Vehicle.

41.
Plaintiffs are entitled to replacement or reimbursement pursuant to Civil Code,

section 1794, et seq.
42.
Plaintiffs are entitled to rescission of the contract pursuant to Civil Code, section
1794, et seq. and Commercial Code, section 2711.
43.
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover any incidental, consequential, and/or “cover”
damages under Commercial Code, sections 2711, 2712, and Civil Code, section 1794, et seq.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2(b)

44.
Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in the
preceding and succeeding paragraphs as though herein fully restated and re-alleged.
45.
Pursuant to Civil Code, section 1793.2, subdivision (a) a manufacturer that sells

consumer goods in California, for which it has made an express warranty, shall maintain service

and repair facilities or designate and authorize independent service and repair facilities to carry out

the terms of those warranties.

46.
Pursuant to Civil Code, section 1793.2, subdivision (b), when service and repair of
-6-
COMPLAINT
Page 7
goods are necessary because they do not conform with the applicable express warranties, service

and repair shall be commenced within a reasonable time by the manufacturer or its representative.

47.
Civil Code, section 1793.2, subdivision (b) further states that goods shall be serviced

or repaired so as to conform to the applicable warranties within 30 days and/or within a reasonable

time.

48.
The sale of the Subject Vehicle was accompanied by express warranties, including

a warranty guaranteeing that the subject vehicle was safe to drive and not equipped with defective

parts, including the electrical system.

49.
Plaintiffs delivered the subject vehicle to TESLA MOTORS, INC.’s authorized

service representatives on multiple occasions. The subject vehicle was delivered for repairs of

defects, which amount to nonconformities to the express warranties that accompanied the sale of

the subject vehicle.

50.
Defendant’s authorized facilities did not conform the Subject Vehicle to warranty

within 30-days and/or commence repairs within a reasonable time, and TESLA MOTORS, INC.

has failed to tender the subject vehicle back to Plaintiff in conformance with its warranties within

the timeframes set forth in Civil Code section 1793.2(b).

51.
Plaintiffs are entitled to justifiably revoke acceptance of the subject vehicle under
Civil Code, section 1794, et seq.

52.
Plaintiffs hereby revoke acceptance of the subject vehicle.

53.
Plaintiffs are entitled to replacement or reimbursement pursuant to Civil Code,

section 1794, et seq.
54.
Plaintiffs are entitled to rescission of the contract pursuant to Civil Code section
1794, et seq. and Commercial Code, section 2711.
55.
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover any “cover” damages under Commercial Code
sections 2711, 2712, and Civil Code, section 1794, et seq.
56.
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover all incidental and consequential damages pursuant
to 1794 et seq and Commercial Code sections, 2711, 2712, and 2713 et seq.
57.
Plaintiffs are entitled in addition to the amounts recovered, a civil penalty of up to
-7-
COMPLAINT
Page 8
two times the amount of actual damages in that TESLA MOTORS, INC. has willfully failed to

comply with its responsibilities under the Act.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant, as follows:

1. For general, special, and actual damages according to proof at trial;

2. For rescission of the purchase contract and restitution of all monies expended;

3. For diminution in value;

4. For incidental and consequential damages according to proof at trial;

5. For civil penalty in the amount of two times Plaintiffs’ actual damages;

6. For prejudgment interest at the legal rate;

7. For reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit; and

For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.

Dated: June 5,
QUILL & ARROW, LLP
________________________
Kevin Y. Jacobson, Esq.
Gregory Sogoyan, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
KEVIN JIAN FENG LAM
CHUNHUA RUAN

Plaintiffs, KEVIN JIAN FENG LAM and CHUNHUA RUAN, hereby demand trial by
jury in this action.

-8-
COMPLAINT
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
 
PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?