Page 1 1 AUTO FRAUD LEGAL CENTER LLP
Christopher P. Barry (SBN 179308)
2 9988 Hibert Street, Suite San Diego, California 3 Telephone: (858) 348-Facsimile: (858) 348-4 hawk@autofraud.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA – RENE C. DAVIDSON COURTHOUSE
10 DAVID F. HURWITZ,
Plaintiff,
Case No.
Complaint
v.
1. Violations of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act;
2. Intentional Misrepresentation;
3. Concealment;
4. Negligent Misrepresentation;
5. Breach of Implied Warranty
Merchantability;
6. Violations of the Unfair Competition
Law; and
7. Violation of Vehicle Code section 11711.
13 TESLA MOTORS, INC.;
HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE
14 COMPANY;
and DOES 1 through 75, inclusive,
Defendants.
Plaintiff alleges the following against Defendants on information and belief, formed after a
21 reasonable inquiry under the circumstances:
PARTIES AND VENUE
1.
David F. Hurwitz (“Plaintiff”) is an individual who resided in the City of Rancho
24 Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, at the time the contract (“Contract”) for the
25 purchase of the 2023 Tesla Model Y, with VIN: 7SAYGDEF1PF702149 (“Vehicle”), which is the subject
26 of this lawsuit, was signed. A true and correct copy of the Contract is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
27 / / /
28 / / /
ComplaintPage 2
2.
Defendant Tesla Motors, Inc. (“Dealer”) is or was a car dealership registered to do
2 business in the State of California and doing business in the City of Fremont, County of Alameda, under
3 dealer license number 68106.
3.
Defendant Harco National Insurance Company is a corporation which issued a bond to
5 Dealer under Vehicle Code § 11710 (Bond # 0729881 effective September 7, 2017).
4.
Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities, whether corporate, partnership,
7 associate, individual, or otherwise, of Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 75, inclusive, and thus
8 names them under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure § 474. Defendants Does 1 through 75,
9 inclusive, are in some manner responsible for the acts, occurrences, and transactions set forth herein, and
10 are legally liable to Plaintiff and/or they are the alter-ego of the Defendants named herein. Plaintiff will
11 set forth the true names and capacities of the fictitiously-named Defendants together with appropriate
12 charging allegations when ascertained.
5.
All acts of Dealer’s employees, as hereinafter alleged, were authorized or ratified by the
14 owner or managing agents of Dealer.
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
6.
On January 30, 2023, Plaintiff ordered the Vehicle from Dealer.
7.
On March 12, 2023, Plaintiff took delivery of the Vehicle. The Vehicle was sold and
18 represented to Plaintiff to as “new,” and is identified on the Contract as “new.”
8.
Based on these representations, Plaintiff agreed to purchase the Vehicle. Plaintiff and
20 Dealer signed the Contract, which included the following terms: $59,630.00 cash price and $64,963.21 total amount paid for the Vehicle.
9.
Plaintiff obtained a loan from Schools First Federal Credit Union to pay Tesla the
23 remaining balance owed.
10.
Plaintiff gave Schools First Federal Credit Union a down payment of $30,000.00 and
25 signed a loan agreement for the remaining balance which included the following terms: 4.49% annual
26 percentage rate, $34,968.33 amount financed, $2,599.96 finance charge, $37,568.29 total of payments,
27 35 monthly payments of $1,051.38 starting on May 31, 2023, and one final payment of $1.043.34 on
28 April 30, 2026.
ComplaintPage 3
11.
Shortly after taking delivery of the Vehicle, Plaintiff noticed the color of the front bumper
2 of the Vehicle did not match the rest of the Vehicle.
12.
Plaintiff contacted Dealer’s service department. On March 15, 2023, when the Vehicle
4 had 60 miles on it, Dealer’s service department in Upland inspected and diagnosed the Vehicle. Dealer’s
5 service department agreed with Plaintiff’s assessment and agreed to replace the bumper cover.
13.
On March 17, 2023, Dealer’s Upland service department removed and replaced the “front
7 fascia assembly.” At the time of this repair, Dealer’s service department told Plaintiff the Vehicle’s front
8 driver’s rim and tire were replaced, the driver’s window had been broken and replaced, and the hood was
9 adjusted.
14.
Two of Dealer’s mobile technicians told Plaintiff work had been done to the Vehicle prior
11 to its delivery to Plaintiff. They both told him there was an internal document which had a long list of
12 repairs performed, but they could not give him a copy of this document.
15.
The Vehicle was damaged prior to being sold to Plaintiff. The Vehicle was sold with
14 unrepaired damages without disclosure.
16.
Plaintiff wanted a new vehicle. He would not have purchased the Vehicle if he had known
16 the Vehicle had been damaged.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code § 1750, et seq.
(As to Dealer and Does 1-75)
17.
Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation set forth above.
18.
The Vehicle constitutes “goods” bought for use primarily for personal, family, or
22 household purposes pursuant to Civil Code § 1761(a).
19.
Dealer is a “person” pursuant to Civil Code § 1761(c).
20.
Plaintiff is a “consumer” pursuant to Civil Code § 1761(d).
21.
The advertisement and sale of the Vehicle to Plaintiff are “transactions” pursuant to Civil
26 Code § 1761(e).
22.
Pursuant to the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Civil Code § 1770(a), the
28 following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices are prohibited:
ComplaintPage 4 1 (5) representing that goods have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, uses, or benefits, which they do
2 not have; (6) representing that goods are original or new if they have deteriorated unreasonably or are
3 altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used, or secondhand; (7) representing that goods are of a particular
4 standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another;
5 (9) advertising goods with intent not to sell them as advertised; (14) representing that a transaction
6 confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which are
7 prohibited by law; and (16) representing that the subject of a transaction has been supplied in accordance
8 with a previous representation when it has not.
23.
Dealer violated the CLRA by, at a minimum: (1) misrepresenting the condition of the
10 Vehicle; (2) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had deteriorated unreasonably, been altered,
11 and/or been reconditioned; (3) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had been repaired;
12 (4) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had been damaged; (5) representing the Vehicle was new,
13 when it had unrepaired damage; (6) concealing the damage to the Vehicle; and (7) concealing the
14 condition of the Vehicle.
24.
Plaintiff mailed, via certified and regular mail, a notice of violations of the CLRA and
16 demand for relief under the CLRA.
25.
Plaintiff has been harmed by Dealer’s violations of the CLRA.
26.
At this time, Plaintiff does not seek “damages” under Civil Code § 1780. The CLRA
19 provides that a complaint for violations may be amended without leave of court should the violations not
20 be remedied within 30 days to add a prayer for damages. Should the violations complained of herein not
21 be remedied within the requisite time frame, Plaintiff will amend the Complaint to seek all available relief
22 under the CLRA.
27.
Civil Code § 1780(a)(2) provides that a consumer is entitled to an injunction prohibiting
24 acts or practices that violate the CLRA. Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining Dealer from the acts, methods,
25 and/or practices set forth above.
28.
Pursuant to Civil Code § 1780(a)(5), Plaintiff seeks any other relief the Court deems
27 proper.
28 / / /
ComplaintPage 5
29.
Pursuant to Civil Code § 1780(e), Plaintiff seeks recovery of his reasonable attorneys’
2 fees and costs.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Intentional Misrepresentation
(As to Dealer and Does 1-75)
30.
Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation set forth above.
31.
Prior to the execution of the Contract, at the time the Contract was executed, and
8 afterward, Dealer made the representations of fact to Plaintiff set forth above.
32.
Prior to the execution of the Contract, at the time the Contract was executed, and
10 afterward, Dealer omitted material facts from the statements it made as set forth above, the disclosure of
11 which were necessary in order to make Dealer’s other statements not misleading.
33.
Specifically, Dealer represented the following facts were true: the Vehicle was new and
13 original.
34.
The representations and omissions of material fact made by Dealer were false.
35.
Dealer knew the representations were false when it made them or made the representations
16 and omissions of material fact recklessly and without regard for their truth.
36.
Dealer owed a statutory duty to Plaintiff under the Vehicle Code not to make false or
18 misleading statments.
37.
Dealer intended Plaintiff rely on its representations.
38.
Plaintiff was unaware of the falsity of the representations or omissions and reasonably
21 relied upon the truth of those representations by purchasing the Vehicle.
39.
Plaintiff’s reliance on Dealer’s representation was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff
40.
As a direct and proximate result of Dealer’s misrepresentations or omissions of material
23 harm.
25 facts, Plaintiff suffered damages, including actual, consequential, and/or incidental damages, according
26 to proof of trial.
27 / / /
28 / / /
ComplaintPage 6
41.
Material facts pertaining to the purchase of the Vehicle were misrepresented, and,
2 therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to rescission of the Contract and restitution in an amount according to proof
3 at trial.
42.
Dealer’s conduct constitutes conduct that is oppressive, fraudulent, and/or malicious,
5 thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294. The acts of Dealer’s corporate
6 employees as alleged were authorized or ratified by an officer, director, or managing agent of Dealer.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Concealment
(As to Dealer and Does 1-75)
43.
Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation set forth above.
44.
Dealer concealed various facts from Plaintiff, as set forth above.
45.
The above facts were material to the transaction and were known exclusively to Dealer.
46.
Dealer knew or reasonably should have known the above facts were not known or
14 reasonably discoverable by Plaintiff.
47.
Further, the disclosure of the above facts was necessary to prevent other statements by
16 Dealer from being misleading.
48.
Dealer thus had a duty to disclose the above facts to Plaintiff.
49.
Dealer intended to deceive Plaintiff by concealing the above facts.
50.
Had the above facts been disclosed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff reasonably would have behaved
20 differently.
51.
The concealment of the above facts by Dealer was a substantial factor in causing
22 Plaintiff’s harm.
52.
As a direct and proximate result of Dealer’s concealment of material facts, Plaintiff
24 suffered damages, including actual, incidental, and consequential damages.
53.
Plaintiff is entitled to rescission of the Contract and restitution.
54.
The acts of Dealer’s employees were authorized or ratified by an officer, director, or
27 managing agent of Dealer.
28 / / /
ComplaintPage 7
55.
Dealer’s conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, and malicious, thereby entitling Plaintiff to
2 punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligent Misrepresentation
(As to Dealer and Does 1-75)
56.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth above.
57.
Prior to the execution of the Contract, at the time the Contract was executed, and
8 afterward, Dealer made misrepresentations of fact as set forth above.
58.
Prior to the execution of the Contract, at the time the Contract was executed, and
10 afterward, Dealer omitted material facts from statements it made as set forth above, the disclosure of
11 which were required by law.
59.
Specifically,
Dealer
made
the
following
misrepresentations
to
Plaintiff:
13 (1) misrepresenting the condition of the Vehicle; (2) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had
14 deteriorated unreasonably, been altered, and/or been reconditioned; (3) representing the Vehicle was new,
15 when it had been repaired; (4) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had been damaged;
16 (5) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had unrepaired damage; (6) concealing the damage to the
17 Vehicle; and (7) concealing the condition of the Vehicle.
60.
The representations by Dealer were not true.
61.
Regardless of its actual belief, Dealer made the representations without any reasonable
20 grounds for believing them to be true when it made them.
62.
Dealer intended Plaintiff rely on its representations.
63.
Dealer had a statutory duty under the Vehicle Code not to make false or misleading
23 statements to Plaintiff. Dealer failed to exercise due care in ascertaining the accuracy of the
24 representations about the Vehicle made to Plaintiff.
64.
Plaintiff reasonably relied upon Dealer’s representations and acted in reliance thereon by
26 purchasing the Vehicle.
65.
Plaintiff was unaware of the falsity of the representations and acted in reliance upon the
28 truth of those representations and was justified in relying upon those representations.
ComplaintPage 8
66.
As a direct and proximate result of Dealer’s negligent misrepresentations of material fact,
2 Plaintiff suffered damages, including all actual, consequential, and incidental damages according to proof
3 at trial. Plaintiff’s reliance on Dealer’s representations were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s
4 harm.
67.
Plaintiff was fraudulently induced to enter into the Contract and, therefore, is entitled to
6 rescission and/or restitution in an amount according to proof at trial, including all actual, consequential,
7 and incidental damages.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Civil Code §
(As to Dealer and Does 1-75)
68.
Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation set forth above.
69.
In connection with the purchase, Plaintiff received an express written warranty in which
13 Dealer undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the Vehicle or to provide
14 compensation if there is a failure in utility or performance for a specified period of time. The warranty
15 provided, in relevant part, that in the event a defect developed with the Vehicle during the warranty
16 period, Plaintiff could deliver the Vehicle for repair services to Dealer or Dealer’s representative and the
17 Vehicle would be repaired.
70.
During the warranty period, the Vehicle contained or developed various defects, including
19 but not limited to the problems with the Vehicle listed above.
71.
Pursuant to Civil Code §§ 1791.1 and 1792, the sale of the Vehicle was accompanied by
21 Dealer’s implied warranty of merchantability. The duration of the implied warranty is coextensive in
22 duration with the duration of the express written warranty provided by Dealer.
72.
The implied warranty of merchantability means and includes that the Vehicle will comply
24 with each of the following requirements: (1) the Vehicle will pass without objection in the trade under
25 the contract description; (2) the Vehicle is fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used;
26 (3) the Vehicle is adequately contained, packaged, and labeled; and (4) the Vehicle will conform to the
27 promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.
28 / / /
ComplaintPage 9
73.
During the time period in which the implied warranty was in effect, the Vehicle contained
2 or developed the defects stated above. The existence of each of these defects constitutes a breach of the
3 implied warranty because the Vehicle (1) does not pass without objection in the trade under the contract
4 description, (2) is not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used, (3) was not adequately
5 labeled, and/or (4) does not conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the label.
74.
Plaintiff rightfully rejected and/or justifiably revoked acceptance of the Vehicle and has
7 exercised a right to cancel the sale. By serving this Complaint, Plaintiff does so again. Accordingly,
8 Plaintiff seeks the remedies provided in Civil Code section 1794(b)(1), including return of the entire
9 purchase price. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks the remedies set forth in Civil Code section 1794(b)(2),
10 including the diminution in value of the Vehicle resulting from its defects. Plaintiff believes that, at the
11 present time, the Vehicle’s value is de minimis.
75.
Plaintiff has been damaged by Dealer’s failure to comply with its obligations under the
13 implied warranty, and therefore brings this claim pursuant to Civil Code § 1794.
76.
Plaintiff is entitled to all incidental and consequential damages resulting from Dealer’s
15 failure to comply with its obligations under the Song-Beverly Act.
77.
Plaintiff is entitled under the Song-Beverly Act to recover as part of the judgment a sum
17 equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, reasonably incurred in
18 connection with the commencement and prosecution of this action.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of the Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
(As to Dealer and Does 1-75)
78.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth above.
79.
Dealer committed acts in violation of the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), as defined
24 by Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., as set forth more fully above. Dealer engaged in a
25 course of conduct of systematically violating the consumer laws in this State prohibiting the commitment
26 of deceptive practices, including the laws of fraud and deceit, and the various prohibitions contained in
27 the CLRA, the Song-Beverly Act, the Commercial Code, and the Vehicle Code.
28 / / /
ComplaintPage 10
80.
The harm to Plaintiff outweighs the utility of Dealer’s policies and/or practices
2 particularly considering the available alternatives, in that Dealer’s policies and/or practices are immoral,
3 unscrupulous, unethical, and/or against public policy. Dealer’s policies and/or practices consequently
4 constitute an “unfair” business act or practice within the meaning of the UCL.
81.
Dealer’s deceptive policies and/or practices as set forth above also are likely to and/or
6 have deceived Plaintiff. Thus, Dealer also engaged in “fraudulent” business practices.
82.
Dealer violated the UCL by, at a minimum: (1) misrepresenting the condition of the
8 Vehicle; (2) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had deteriorated unreasonably, altered, and/or
9 reconditioned; (3) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had been repaired; (4) representing the
10 Vehicle was new, when it had been damaged; (5) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had
11 unrepaired damage; (6) concealing the damage to the Vehicle; (7) concealing the condition of the
12 Vehicle; (8) violating the CLRA; (9) violating the Song-Beverly Act; (10) violating the Commercial
13 Code; and (11) violating the Vehicle Code.
83.
Plaintiff lost money and suffered injury in fact as a result of Dealer’s illegal conduct.
84.
Dealer engaged in, and continues to engage in, the same form of deceptive acts and/or
16 practices.
85.
Dealer’s unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices present a continuing threat
18 to Plaintiff and/or others in that Dealer will continue utilizing similar policies and/or practices.
86.
Business and Professions Code § 17203 provides that Plaintiff is entitled to an order
20 enjoining Dealer from engaging in acts or practices that violate Business and Professions Code § 17200,
21 as well as providing for equitable monetary relief so as to preclude the retention of all ill-gotten monies
22 by Dealer or so as to restore any monies wrongfully obtained by Dealer to Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks such
23 equitable monetary relief, and an order enjoining Dealer from engaging in the acts and/or practices set
24 forth above, imposing an asset freeze or constructive trust over such monies as the Court deems
25 appropriate, as well as compelling a corrective informational campaign to correct the misperceptions in
26 the marketplace created by such conduct.
27 / / /
28 / / /
ComplaintPage 11
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Vehicle Code §
(As to Harco National Insurance Company and Does 71-75)
87.
Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation set forth above.
88.
As a condition of obtaining a license from the California DMV to sell vehicles, Dealer
6 was required by Vehicle Code § 11710 to obtain, and did obtain, a surety bond in the amount of $50,7 from Harco National Insurance Company.
89.
Harco National Insurance Company issued Bond No. Bond # 0729881 effective
9 September 7, 2017, to Dealer to fulfill its obligations under Vehicle Code § 11710. The bond issued to
10 Dealer was in effect on the date of the incidents alleged above.
90.
Pursuant to Vehicle Code § 11710(a), the bond was issued to Dealer and made payable to
12 “a purchaser” in the case of “fraud” by Dealer.
91.
Plaintiff is a purchaser within the meaning of Vehicle Code § 11710(a). Fraud, as that
14 term is used in Vehicle Code § 11710(a), is the same fraud as commonly defined in the law, including
15 fraud as defined in Civil Code §§ 1571, 1572, and 1573 and Vehicle Code § 11710(a). See Beverly
16 Finance Co. v. Sentry Select Insurance Company Casualty Co. of Reading (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 259.
92.
Dealer committed fraud within the meaning of Civil Code §§ 1571, 1572, and 1573 and
18 Vehicle Code §§ 11710(a) and 11711(a)(1).
93.
Vehicle Code § 11711(a) provides a consumer with a cause of action against the surety
20 company if a dealership committed fraud. Dealer committed fraud in the sale of the vehicle by:
21 (1) misrepresenting the condition of the Vehicle; (2) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had
22 deteriorated unreasonably, been altered, and/or been reconditioned; (3) representing the Vehicle was new,
23 when it had been repaired; (4) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had been damaged;
24 (5) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had unrepaired damage; (6) concealing the damage to the
25 Vehicle; and (7) concealing the condition of the Vehicle.
94.
Dealer’s fraud was committed by salesmen or persons acting within the scope of their
27 employment.
28 / / /
ComplaintPage 12
95.
Plaintiff has possession of a written instrument furnished by Dealer, containing stipulated
2 provisions and guarantees which Plaintiff believes have been violated by Dealer.
96.
Harco National Insurance Company is liable under the bond to Plaintiff, based on the
4 fraud of Dealer, in the amount of the purchase price of the vehicle, or such other sum as is established at
5 the time of trial, according to proof.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Accordingly, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows and as permitted as to each cause of action:
1.
for rescission of the Contract in the amount of $64,963.33;
2.
for restitution in the amount of $64,963.33;
3.
for actual damages in the amount of $64,963.33;
4.
for incidental and consequential damages in the amount of $7,500.00;
5.
for punitive damages where available;
6.
no request for damages is made under the CLRA until such time as the CLRA
cause of action is amended to add damages;
7.
no request for punitive damages is made as to Harco National Insurance
Company;
8.
for the equitable and injunctive relief permitted under Civil Code §§ 1780 and
1794 and Business & Professions Code § 17200;
9.
for pre-judgment interest at the legal and/or contract rate;
10.
for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit as permitted by law (including, but
not limited to, Civil Code §§ 1780(e) and 1794(d), Code of Civil Procedure
§ 1021.5, and the bond company claims);
11.
relief under Business & Professions Code § 17200 as limited as provided by law;
and
12.
for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the
circumstances.
27 / / /
28 / / /
ComplaintPage 13 1 Dated: June 14,
AUTO FRAUD LEGAL CENTER LLP
By:
_________________________
Christopher P. Barry
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ComplaintPage 14 EXHIBIT 1Page 15 Serial: Reservation RN
T
= 5 Lom
Motor Vehicle Purchase Agreement
Vehicle Configuration
DATE OF AGREEMENT 03/12/BUYER’S AND CO-BUYER’S NAME AND ADDRESS: SELLER’S NAME AND ADDRESs:
David Fleron Hurwitz Tesla Motors Inc.
Po 45500 Fremont Blvd
RCH CUCAMONGA, CA 91739 Fremont, CA New/Used Year Make Model Style Vehicle Identification Number Odometer
New 2023 TESLA Model Y UT 7SAYGDEFIPF702149
1. Total Vehicle Price
A. Cash price of motor vehicle, options, accessories and fees.
(See attached Vehicle Configuration for itemization.) $ 59,630.00 (A)
B. Other: N/A $ 0.00 (B)
Cc. Other: N/A $ 0.00 (C)
Total Vehicle Price (A through C) $ 59,630.00 (1)
2. Tax Calculation
A. Trade-in tax credit (if applicable) $ 0.00 (A)
B. Taxable Fees Cif applicable) $ 0.00 (B)
C. Subtotal of Taxable Items $ 59,630.00 (C)
D. Sales Tax $ 4,621.33 (2D)
E. Other: N/A $ 0.00 (2E)
Total Cash Price (1 plus 2D and 2E) $ 64,251.33 (2)
3. Amounts Paid to Government Agencies*
A. Registration/Transfer/Titling Fees $ 288.00 (A)
B. License Fee Cif applicable) $ 386.00 (B)
C. Tire Fee Cif applicable) $ 7.00 (C)
D. Battery Fee Cif applicable) $ 0.00 (D)
E. Other Fee(s): Electronic Filing Fee $ 31.00 (E)
F. Other Fee(s): N/A $ 0.00 (F)
G. Other Fee(s): N/A $ 0.00 (G)
Total Government Fees (A through G) $ 712.00 (3)
4. Subtotal (2 plus 3) $ 64,963.33 (4)
5. Total Credits
A. Deposit $ 0.00 (A)
B. Order Fee Payment $ 250.00 (B)
C. Transport Fee Payment (if applicable) $ 0.00 (C)
D. Financed Amount: SchoolsFirst FCU $ 64,713.33 (D)
E. EV Incentive Cif applicable) $ 0.00 (E)
F. Trade in value applied to purchase Cif applicable) $ 0.00 (F)
G. Customer downpayment $ 0.00 (G)
Total Credits (A through G) $ 64,963.53 (5)
6. Amount Due from Buyer (4 through 5) $ 0.00 (6)
*Seller may retain or receive part of the amounts paid to others.
For VIRGINIA residents: IF YOU ARE FINANCING THIS VEHICLE, PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE: YOU ARE PROPOSING TO ENTER INTO
IA RETAIL INSTALLMENT SALES CONTRACT WITH THE DEALER. PART OF YOUR CONTRACT INVOLVES FINANCING THE PURCHASE
OF YOUR VEHICLE. IF YOU ARE FINANCING THIS VEHICLE AND THE DEALER INTENDS TO TRANSFER YOUR FINANCING TO A
FINANCE PROVIDER SUCH AS A BANK, CREDIT UNION OR OTHER LENDER, YOUR VEHICLE PURCHASE DEPENDS ON THE FINANCE
PROVIDER'S APPROVAL OF YOUR PROPOSED RETAIL INSTALLMENT SALES CONTRACT. IF YOUR RETAIL INSTALLMENT SALES
CONTRACT IS APPROVED WITHOUT A CHANGE THAT INCREASES THE COST OR RISK TO YOU OR THE DEALER, YOUR PURCHASE
CANNOT BE CANCELLED. IF YOUR RETAIL INSTALLMENT SALES CONTRACT IS NOT APPROVED, THE DEALER WILL NOTIFY YOU
VERBALLY OR IN WRITING. YOU CAN THEN DECIDE TO PAY FOR THE VEHICLE IN SOME OTHER WAY OR YOU OR THE DEALER CAN
CANCEL YOUR PURCHASE. IF THE SALE IS CANCELLED, YOU NEED TO RETURN THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER WITHIN 24 HOURS OF
VERBAL OR WRITTEN NOTICE IN THE SAME CONDITION IT WAS GIVEN TO YOU, EXCEPT FOR NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR. ANY
IDDOWN PAYMENT OR TRADE-IN YOU GAVE THE DEALER WILL BE RETURNED TO YOU. IF YOU DO NOT RETURN THE VEHICLE
WITHIN 24 HOURS OF VERBAL OR WRITTEN NOTICE OF CANCELLATION, THE DEALER MAY LOCATE THE VEHICLE AND TAKE IT
BACK WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU AS LONG AS THE DEALER FOLLOWS THE LAW AND DOES NOT CAUSE A BREACH OF THE
PEACE WHEN TAKING THE VEHICLE BACK. IF THE DEALER DOES NOT RETURN YOUR DOWN PAYMENT AND ANY TRADE-IN WHEN
THE DEALER GETS THE VEHICLE BACK IN THE SAME CONDITION IT WAS GIVEN TO YOU, EXCEPT FOR NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR,
THE DEALER MAY BE LIABLE TO YOU UNDER THE VIRGINIA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
1 AUTO FRAUD LEGAL CENTER LLP
Christopher P. Barry (SBN 179308)
2 9988 Hibert Street, Suite 150
San Diego, California 92131
3 Telephone: (858) 348-1005
Facsimile: (858) 348-1150
4 hawk@autofraud.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
6
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA – RENE C. DAVIDSON COURTHOUSE
10 DAVID F. HURWITZ,
Plaintiff,
11
12
Case No.
Complaint
v.
1. Violations of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act;
2. Intentional Misrepresentation;
3. Concealment;
4. Negligent Misrepresentation;
5. Breach of Implied Warranty
Merchantability;
6. Violations of the Unfair Competition
Law; and
7. Violation of Vehicle Code section 11711.
13 TESLA MOTORS, INC.;
HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE
14 COMPANY;
and DOES 1 through 75, inclusive,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
Plaintiff alleges the following against Defendants on information and belief, formed after a
21 reasonable inquiry under the circumstances:
PARTIES AND VENUE
22
23
1.
David F. Hurwitz (“Plaintiff”) is an individual who resided in the City of Rancho
24 Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, at the time the contract (“Contract”) for the
25 purchase of the 2023 Tesla Model Y, with VIN: 7SAYGDEF1PF702149 (“Vehicle”), which is the subject
26 of this lawsuit, was signed. A true and correct copy of the Contract is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
27 / / /
28 / / /
1
Complaint
PDF Page 3
1
2.
Defendant Tesla Motors, Inc. (“Dealer”) is or was a car dealership registered to do
2 business in the State of California and doing business in the City of Fremont, County of Alameda, under
3 dealer license number 68106.
4
3.
Defendant Harco National Insurance Company is a corporation which issued a bond to
5 Dealer under Vehicle Code § 11710 (Bond # 0729881 effective September 7, 2017).
6
4.
Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities, whether corporate, partnership,
7 associate, individual, or otherwise, of Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 75, inclusive, and thus
8 names them under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure § 474. Defendants Does 1 through 75,
9 inclusive, are in some manner responsible for the acts, occurrences, and transactions set forth herein, and
10 are legally liable to Plaintiff and/or they are the alter-ego of the Defendants named herein. Plaintiff will
11 set forth the true names and capacities of the fictitiously-named Defendants together with appropriate
12 charging allegations when ascertained.
13
5.
All acts of Dealer’s employees, as hereinafter alleged, were authorized or ratified by the
14 owner or managing agents of Dealer.
15
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
16
6.
On January 30, 2023, Plaintiff ordered the Vehicle from Dealer.
17
7.
On March 12, 2023, Plaintiff took delivery of the Vehicle. The Vehicle was sold and
18 represented to Plaintiff to as “new,” and is identified on the Contract as “new.”
19
8.
Based on these representations, Plaintiff agreed to purchase the Vehicle. Plaintiff and
20 Dealer signed the Contract, which included the following terms: $59,630.00 cash price and $64,963.33
21 total amount paid for the Vehicle.
22
9.
Plaintiff obtained a loan from Schools First Federal Credit Union to pay Tesla the
23 remaining balance owed.
24
10.
Plaintiff gave Schools First Federal Credit Union a down payment of $30,000.00 and
25 signed a loan agreement for the remaining balance which included the following terms: 4.49% annual
26 percentage rate, $34,968.33 amount financed, $2,599.96 finance charge, $37,568.29 total of payments,
27 35 monthly payments of $1,051.38 starting on May 31, 2023, and one final payment of $1.043.34 on
28 April 30, 2026.
2
Complaint
PDF Page 4
1
11.
Shortly after taking delivery of the Vehicle, Plaintiff noticed the color of the front bumper
2 of the Vehicle did not match the rest of the Vehicle.
3
12.
Plaintiff contacted Dealer’s service department. On March 15, 2023, when the Vehicle
4 had 60 miles on it, Dealer’s service department in Upland inspected and diagnosed the Vehicle. Dealer’s
5 service department agreed with Plaintiff’s assessment and agreed to replace the bumper cover.
6
13.
On March 17, 2023, Dealer’s Upland service department removed and replaced the “front
7 fascia assembly.” At the time of this repair, Dealer’s service department told Plaintiff the Vehicle’s front
8 driver’s rim and tire were replaced, the driver’s window had been broken and replaced, and the hood was
9 adjusted.
10
14.
Two of Dealer’s mobile technicians told Plaintiff work had been done to the Vehicle prior
11 to its delivery to Plaintiff. They both told him there was an internal document which had a long list of
12 repairs performed, but they could not give him a copy of this document.
13
15.
The Vehicle was damaged prior to being sold to Plaintiff. The Vehicle was sold with
14 unrepaired damages without disclosure.
15
16.
Plaintiff wanted a new vehicle. He would not have purchased the Vehicle if he had known
16 the Vehicle had been damaged.
17
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
18
Violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code § 1750, et seq.
19
(As to Dealer and Does 1-75)
20
17.
Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation set forth above.
21
18.
The Vehicle constitutes “goods” bought for use primarily for personal, family, or
22 household purposes pursuant to Civil Code § 1761(a).
23
19.
Dealer is a “person” pursuant to Civil Code § 1761(c).
24
20.
Plaintiff is a “consumer” pursuant to Civil Code § 1761(d).
25
21.
The advertisement and sale of the Vehicle to Plaintiff are “transactions” pursuant to Civil
26 Code § 1761(e).
27
22.
Pursuant to the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Civil Code § 1770(a), the
28 following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices are prohibited:
3
Complaint
PDF Page 5
1 (5) representing that goods have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, uses, or benefits, which they do
2 not have; (6) representing that goods are original or new if they have deteriorated unreasonably or are
3 altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used, or secondhand; (7) representing that goods are of a particular
4 standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another;
5 (9) advertising goods with intent not to sell them as advertised; (14) representing that a transaction
6 confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which are
7 prohibited by law; and (16) representing that the subject of a transaction has been supplied in accordance
8 with a previous representation when it has not.
9
23.
Dealer violated the CLRA by, at a minimum: (1) misrepresenting the condition of the
10 Vehicle; (2) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had deteriorated unreasonably, been altered,
11 and/or been reconditioned; (3) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had been repaired;
12 (4) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had been damaged; (5) representing the Vehicle was new,
13 when it had unrepaired damage; (6) concealing the damage to the Vehicle; and (7) concealing the
14 condition of the Vehicle.
15
24.
Plaintiff mailed, via certified and regular mail, a notice of violations of the CLRA and
16 demand for relief under the CLRA.
17
25.
Plaintiff has been harmed by Dealer’s violations of the CLRA.
18
26.
At this time, Plaintiff does not seek “damages” under Civil Code § 1780. The CLRA
19 provides that a complaint for violations may be amended without leave of court should the violations not
20 be remedied within 30 days to add a prayer for damages. Should the violations complained of herein not
21 be remedied within the requisite time frame, Plaintiff will amend the Complaint to seek all available relief
22 under the CLRA.
23
27.
Civil Code § 1780(a)(2) provides that a consumer is entitled to an injunction prohibiting
24 acts or practices that violate the CLRA. Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining Dealer from the acts, methods,
25 and/or practices set forth above.
26
28.
Pursuant to Civil Code § 1780(a)(5), Plaintiff seeks any other relief the Court deems
27 proper.
28 / / /
4
Complaint
PDF Page 6
1
29.
Pursuant to Civil Code § 1780(e), Plaintiff seeks recovery of his reasonable attorneys’
2 fees and costs.
3
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
4
Intentional Misrepresentation
5
(As to Dealer and Does 1-75)
6
30.
Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation set forth above.
7
31.
Prior to the execution of the Contract, at the time the Contract was executed, and
8 afterward, Dealer made the representations of fact to Plaintiff set forth above.
9
32.
Prior to the execution of the Contract, at the time the Contract was executed, and
10 afterward, Dealer omitted material facts from the statements it made as set forth above, the disclosure of
11 which were necessary in order to make Dealer’s other statements not misleading.
12
33.
Specifically, Dealer represented the following facts were true: the Vehicle was new and
13 original.
14
34.
The representations and omissions of material fact made by Dealer were false.
15
35.
Dealer knew the representations were false when it made them or made the representations
16 and omissions of material fact recklessly and without regard for their truth.
17
36.
Dealer owed a statutory duty to Plaintiff under the Vehicle Code not to make false or
18 misleading statments.
19
37.
Dealer intended Plaintiff rely on its representations.
20
38.
Plaintiff was unaware of the falsity of the representations or omissions and reasonably
21 relied upon the truth of those representations by purchasing the Vehicle.
22
39.
Plaintiff’s reliance on Dealer’s representation was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff
40.
As a direct and proximate result of Dealer’s misrepresentations or omissions of material
23 harm.
24
25 facts, Plaintiff suffered damages, including actual, consequential, and/or incidental damages, according
26 to proof of trial.
27 / / /
28 / / /
5
Complaint
PDF Page 7
1
41.
Material facts pertaining to the purchase of the Vehicle were misrepresented, and,
2 therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to rescission of the Contract and restitution in an amount according to proof
3 at trial.
4
42.
Dealer’s conduct constitutes conduct that is oppressive, fraudulent, and/or malicious,
5 thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294. The acts of Dealer’s corporate
6 employees as alleged were authorized or ratified by an officer, director, or managing agent of Dealer.
7
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
8
Concealment
9
(As to Dealer and Does 1-75)
10
43.
Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation set forth above.
11
44.
Dealer concealed various facts from Plaintiff, as set forth above.
12
45.
The above facts were material to the transaction and were known exclusively to Dealer.
13
46.
Dealer knew or reasonably should have known the above facts were not known or
14 reasonably discoverable by Plaintiff.
15
47.
Further, the disclosure of the above facts was necessary to prevent other statements by
16 Dealer from being misleading.
17
48.
Dealer thus had a duty to disclose the above facts to Plaintiff.
18
49.
Dealer intended to deceive Plaintiff by concealing the above facts.
19
50.
Had the above facts been disclosed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff reasonably would have behaved
20 differently.
21
51.
The concealment of the above facts by Dealer was a substantial factor in causing
22 Plaintiff’s harm.
23
52.
As a direct and proximate result of Dealer’s concealment of material facts, Plaintiff
24 suffered damages, including actual, incidental, and consequential damages.
25
53.
Plaintiff is entitled to rescission of the Contract and restitution.
26
54.
The acts of Dealer’s employees were authorized or ratified by an officer, director, or
27 managing agent of Dealer.
28 / / /
6
Complaint
PDF Page 8
1
55.
Dealer’s conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, and malicious, thereby entitling Plaintiff to
2 punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294.
3
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4
Negligent Misrepresentation
5
(As to Dealer and Does 1-75)
6
56.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth above.
7
57.
Prior to the execution of the Contract, at the time the Contract was executed, and
8 afterward, Dealer made misrepresentations of fact as set forth above.
9
58.
Prior to the execution of the Contract, at the time the Contract was executed, and
10 afterward, Dealer omitted material facts from statements it made as set forth above, the disclosure of
11 which were required by law.
12
59.
Specifically,
Dealer
made
the
following
misrepresentations
to
Plaintiff:
13 (1) misrepresenting the condition of the Vehicle; (2) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had
14 deteriorated unreasonably, been altered, and/or been reconditioned; (3) representing the Vehicle was new,
15 when it had been repaired; (4) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had been damaged;
16 (5) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had unrepaired damage; (6) concealing the damage to the
17 Vehicle; and (7) concealing the condition of the Vehicle.
18
60.
The representations by Dealer were not true.
19
61.
Regardless of its actual belief, Dealer made the representations without any reasonable
20 grounds for believing them to be true when it made them.
21
62.
Dealer intended Plaintiff rely on its representations.
22
63.
Dealer had a statutory duty under the Vehicle Code not to make false or misleading
23 statements to Plaintiff. Dealer failed to exercise due care in ascertaining the accuracy of the
24 representations about the Vehicle made to Plaintiff.
25
64.
Plaintiff reasonably relied upon Dealer’s representations and acted in reliance thereon by
26 purchasing the Vehicle.
27
65.
Plaintiff was unaware of the falsity of the representations and acted in reliance upon the
28 truth of those representations and was justified in relying upon those representations.
7
Complaint
PDF Page 9
1
66.
As a direct and proximate result of Dealer’s negligent misrepresentations of material fact,
2 Plaintiff suffered damages, including all actual, consequential, and incidental damages according to proof
3 at trial. Plaintiff’s reliance on Dealer’s representations were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s
4 harm.
5
67.
Plaintiff was fraudulently induced to enter into the Contract and, therefore, is entitled to
6 rescission and/or restitution in an amount according to proof at trial, including all actual, consequential,
7 and incidental damages.
8
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
9
Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Civil Code § 1794
10
(As to Dealer and Does 1-75)
11
68.
Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation set forth above.
12
69.
In connection with the purchase, Plaintiff received an express written warranty in which
13 Dealer undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the Vehicle or to provide
14 compensation if there is a failure in utility or performance for a specified period of time. The warranty
15 provided, in relevant part, that in the event a defect developed with the Vehicle during the warranty
16 period, Plaintiff could deliver the Vehicle for repair services to Dealer or Dealer’s representative and the
17 Vehicle would be repaired.
18
70.
During the warranty period, the Vehicle contained or developed various defects, including
19 but not limited to the problems with the Vehicle listed above.
20
71.
Pursuant to Civil Code §§ 1791.1 and 1792, the sale of the Vehicle was accompanied by
21 Dealer’s implied warranty of merchantability. The duration of the implied warranty is coextensive in
22 duration with the duration of the express written warranty provided by Dealer.
23
72.
The implied warranty of merchantability means and includes that the Vehicle will comply
24 with each of the following requirements: (1) the Vehicle will pass without objection in the trade under
25 the contract description; (2) the Vehicle is fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used;
26 (3) the Vehicle is adequately contained, packaged, and labeled; and (4) the Vehicle will conform to the
27 promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.
28 / / /
8
Complaint
PDF Page 10
1
73.
During the time period in which the implied warranty was in effect, the Vehicle contained
2 or developed the defects stated above. The existence of each of these defects constitutes a breach of the
3 implied warranty because the Vehicle (1) does not pass without objection in the trade under the contract
4 description, (2) is not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used, (3) was not adequately
5 labeled, and/or (4) does not conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the label.
6
74.
Plaintiff rightfully rejected and/or justifiably revoked acceptance of the Vehicle and has
7 exercised a right to cancel the sale. By serving this Complaint, Plaintiff does so again. Accordingly,
8 Plaintiff seeks the remedies provided in Civil Code section 1794(b)(1), including return of the entire
9 purchase price. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks the remedies set forth in Civil Code section 1794(b)(2),
10 including the diminution in value of the Vehicle resulting from its defects. Plaintiff believes that, at the
11 present time, the Vehicle’s value is de minimis.
12
75.
Plaintiff has been damaged by Dealer’s failure to comply with its obligations under the
13 implied warranty, and therefore brings this claim pursuant to Civil Code § 1794.
14
76.
Plaintiff is entitled to all incidental and consequential damages resulting from Dealer’s
15 failure to comply with its obligations under the Song-Beverly Act.
16
77.
Plaintiff is entitled under the Song-Beverly Act to recover as part of the judgment a sum
17 equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, reasonably incurred in
18 connection with the commencement and prosecution of this action.
19
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20
Violations of the Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
21
(As to Dealer and Does 1-75)
22
78.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth above.
23
79.
Dealer committed acts in violation of the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), as defined
24 by Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., as set forth more fully above. Dealer engaged in a
25 course of conduct of systematically violating the consumer laws in this State prohibiting the commitment
26 of deceptive practices, including the laws of fraud and deceit, and the various prohibitions contained in
27 the CLRA, the Song-Beverly Act, the Commercial Code, and the Vehicle Code.
28 / / /
9
Complaint
PDF Page 11
1
80.
The harm to Plaintiff outweighs the utility of Dealer’s policies and/or practices
2 particularly considering the available alternatives, in that Dealer’s policies and/or practices are immoral,
3 unscrupulous, unethical, and/or against public policy. Dealer’s policies and/or practices consequently
4 constitute an “unfair” business act or practice within the meaning of the UCL.
5
81.
Dealer’s deceptive policies and/or practices as set forth above also are likely to and/or
6 have deceived Plaintiff. Thus, Dealer also engaged in “fraudulent” business practices.
7
82.
Dealer violated the UCL by, at a minimum: (1) misrepresenting the condition of the
8 Vehicle; (2) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had deteriorated unreasonably, altered, and/or
9 reconditioned; (3) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had been repaired; (4) representing the
10 Vehicle was new, when it had been damaged; (5) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had
11 unrepaired damage; (6) concealing the damage to the Vehicle; (7) concealing the condition of the
12 Vehicle; (8) violating the CLRA; (9) violating the Song-Beverly Act; (10) violating the Commercial
13 Code; and (11) violating the Vehicle Code.
14
83.
Plaintiff lost money and suffered injury in fact as a result of Dealer’s illegal conduct.
15
84.
Dealer engaged in, and continues to engage in, the same form of deceptive acts and/or
16 practices.
17
85.
Dealer’s unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices present a continuing threat
18 to Plaintiff and/or others in that Dealer will continue utilizing similar policies and/or practices.
19
86.
Business and Professions Code § 17203 provides that Plaintiff is entitled to an order
20 enjoining Dealer from engaging in acts or practices that violate Business and Professions Code § 17200,
21 as well as providing for equitable monetary relief so as to preclude the retention of all ill-gotten monies
22 by Dealer or so as to restore any monies wrongfully obtained by Dealer to Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks such
23 equitable monetary relief, and an order enjoining Dealer from engaging in the acts and/or practices set
24 forth above, imposing an asset freeze or constructive trust over such monies as the Court deems
25 appropriate, as well as compelling a corrective informational campaign to correct the misperceptions in
26 the marketplace created by such conduct.
27 / / /
28 / / /
10
Complaint
PDF Page 12
1
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2
Violation of Vehicle Code § 11711
3
(As to Harco National Insurance Company and Does 71-75)
4
87.
Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation set forth above.
5
88.
As a condition of obtaining a license from the California DMV to sell vehicles, Dealer
6 was required by Vehicle Code § 11710 to obtain, and did obtain, a surety bond in the amount of $50,000
7 from Harco National Insurance Company.
8
89.
Harco National Insurance Company issued Bond No. Bond # 0729881 effective
9 September 7, 2017, to Dealer to fulfill its obligations under Vehicle Code § 11710. The bond issued to
10 Dealer was in effect on the date of the incidents alleged above.
11
90.
Pursuant to Vehicle Code § 11710(a), the bond was issued to Dealer and made payable to
12 “a purchaser” in the case of “fraud” by Dealer.
13
91.
Plaintiff is a purchaser within the meaning of Vehicle Code § 11710(a). Fraud, as that
14 term is used in Vehicle Code § 11710(a), is the same fraud as commonly defined in the law, including
15 fraud as defined in Civil Code §§ 1571, 1572, and 1573 and Vehicle Code § 11710(a). See Beverly
16 Finance Co. v. Sentry Select Insurance Company Casualty Co. of Reading (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 259.
17
92.
Dealer committed fraud within the meaning of Civil Code §§ 1571, 1572, and 1573 and
18 Vehicle Code §§ 11710(a) and 11711(a)(1).
19
93.
Vehicle Code § 11711(a) provides a consumer with a cause of action against the surety
20 company if a dealership committed fraud. Dealer committed fraud in the sale of the vehicle by:
21 (1) misrepresenting the condition of the Vehicle; (2) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had
22 deteriorated unreasonably, been altered, and/or been reconditioned; (3) representing the Vehicle was new,
23 when it had been repaired; (4) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had been damaged;
24 (5) representing the Vehicle was new, when it had unrepaired damage; (6) concealing the damage to the
25 Vehicle; and (7) concealing the condition of the Vehicle.
26
94.
Dealer’s fraud was committed by salesmen or persons acting within the scope of their
27 employment.
28 / / /
11
Complaint
PDF Page 13
1
95.
Plaintiff has possession of a written instrument furnished by Dealer, containing stipulated
2 provisions and guarantees which Plaintiff believes have been violated by Dealer.
3
96.
Harco National Insurance Company is liable under the bond to Plaintiff, based on the
4 fraud of Dealer, in the amount of the purchase price of the vehicle, or such other sum as is established at
5 the time of trial, according to proof.
6
7
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Accordingly, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows and as permitted as to each cause of action:
8
1.
for rescission of the Contract in the amount of $64,963.33;
9
2.
for restitution in the amount of $64,963.33;
10
3.
for actual damages in the amount of $64,963.33;
11
4.
for incidental and consequential damages in the amount of $7,500.00;
12
5.
for punitive damages where available;
13
6.
no request for damages is made under the CLRA until such time as the CLRA
14
15
cause of action is amended to add damages;
7.
16
17
no request for punitive damages is made as to Harco National Insurance
Company;
8.
18
for the equitable and injunctive relief permitted under Civil Code §§ 1780 and
1794 and Business & Professions Code § 17200;
19
9.
for pre-judgment interest at the legal and/or contract rate;
20
10.
for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit as permitted by law (including, but
21
not limited to, Civil Code §§ 1780(e) and 1794(d), Code of Civil Procedure
22
§ 1021.5, and the bond company claims);
23
11.
24
25
26
relief under Business & Professions Code § 17200 as limited as provided by law;
and
12.
for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the
circumstances.
27 / / /
28 / / /
12
Complaint
PDF Page 14
1 Dated: June 14, 2023
AUTO FRAUD LEGAL CENTER LLP
2
3
4
By:
_________________________
Christopher P. Barry
Attorneys for Plaintiff
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
Complaint
T = &
Ler
Payment Instructions
Electronic Check
The easiest way to pay for your Model Y is by
electronic check, also known as ACH. Prior to
delivery, you will be invited by email to make your
payment on our website.
To make a payment now, please sign in to your My
Tesla account at this web address:
https:/www.tesla.com/teslaaccount
Mailed Cashier's Check
If you are planning to mail a cashier’s check for final
payment, please make payable to Tesla, Inc. and
send it to the following address:
Attn: Funding Team
45500 Fremont Blvd
Fremont, CA 94538
Wire Transfer
Please include your name and your order number
(RN118495573) when paying by wire transfer.
Bank Name Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Bank Address 420 Montgomery
San Francisco, CA 94104
Account Name Tesla Motors Inc.
Account # 83231814118495573
ABA/Routing # 121000248
Note Your name, RN118495573
Please note: If you are sending a wire from Bank of
America, you must use this account number:
4000118323