KHAW, et al. v. TESLA MOTORS, INC. Document 1: Document

Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
Case No. 23CV036595
Filed June 22, 2023

Complaint Filed by: Matthew Myatthu Khaw (Plaintiff); Rosy Chan (Plaintiff) As to: Tesla Motors, Inc. (Defendant)

BackBack to KHAW, et al. v. TESLA MOTORS, INC.

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

  Formatted Text Tab Overlap Raw Text Right End
Page 1
PRESTIGE LEGAL SOLUTIONS, P.C.
Michelle Yang, Esq. (SBN 325467)
Andrea Plata, Esq. (SBN 343766)
6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite Los Angeles, CA Telephone: (310) 933-Fax: (310) 933-Electronic Service: eservice@plsfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
MATTHEW MYATTHU KHAW AND
ROSY CHAN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
6420 WILSHIRE BLVD., STE. 200, LOS ANGELES, CA
PRESTIGE LEGAL SOLUTIONS, P.C.

MATTHEW MYATTHU KHAW, an
individual, and ROSY CHAN, an individual,

Hon.
Dept.:
Plaintiffs,
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF
STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS
vs.
TESLA MOTORS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case No.:
Defendants.
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Page 2
Plaintiffs Matthew Myatthu Khaw and Rosy Chan (“Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:
PARTIES

6420 WILSHIRE BLVD., STE. 200, LOS ANGELES, CA
PRESTIGE LEGAL SOLUTIONS, P.C.

1.
As used in this Complaint, the word "Plaintiffs” shall refer to Plaintiffs Matthew
Myatthu Khaw and Rosy Chan.
2.
Plaintiffs are, and at all times relevant herein were, residents of Fremont,
California.

3.
As used in this Complaint, the word "Defendant" shall refer to Defendant TESLA

MOTORS, INC.,.

4.
Defendant is, and at all times relevant herein was, a corporation organized under

the laws of the State of Delaware and registered to conduct business in California. At all times

relevant herein, Defendant was engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,

assembling, producing, constructing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling consumer goods,

including but not limited to motor vehicles and motor vehicle components.

5.
Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued

under the fictitious names “DOES 1 to 10”. These Defendants are sued pursuant to Code of

Civil Procedure section 474. When Plaintiffs become aware of the true names and capacities

of the Defendants sued as DOES 1 to 10, Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to state their true

names and capacities.

6.
Plaintiffs
hereby
revoke
acceptance
of
their

Tesla
Y,
7SAYGDEE5PF592469 (“Subject Vehicle”).
7.
Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all causes of action asserted herein.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANT

VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF CIVIL CODE SECTION 1793.
8.

VIN
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs set
forth above.
9.
On or around December 10, 2022, Plaintiffs purchased Subject Vehicle. Subject
Vehicle is a new motor vehicle, as the term is defined by California Civil Code section
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Page 3
1793.22(e)(2).1 Subject Vehicle was manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant.
10.

household purposes. Plaintiffs purchased Subject Vehicle from a person or entity engaged in

the business of manufacturing, distributing, selling, or leasing consumer goods at retail.
11.
6420 WILSHIRE BLVD., STE. 200, LOS ANGELES, CA
PRESTIGE LEGAL SOLUTIONS, P.C.
Plaintiffs purchased and used Subject Vehicle primarily for personal, family, or
When the Subject Vehicle was purchased, Plaintiffs received express written

warranties in which Defendant undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of

Subject Vehicle or to provide compensation if there is a failure in utility or performance for a

specified period of time.

nonconformity developed within Subject Vehicle during the applicable warranty period,

Plaintiffs could deliver Subject Vehicle for repair to Defendant's authorized service and repair

facilities and Subject Vehicle would be repaired.
12.

The warranty provided, in relevant part, that in the event a
During Plaintiffs ownership of Subject Vehicle, the Subject Vehicle manifested

defects covered by Defendant’s express written warranties. These defects include but are not

limited to: electrical, body/trim, axle, suspension, seat, window system defects (Subject

Vehicle’s “defects”). These defects substantially impair the use, value, and/or safety of Subject

Vehicle to Plaintiffs.
13.

Plaintiffs delivered Subject Vehicle to Defendant and/or its authorized service
and repair facilities for diagnosis and repair of the defects.
14.

Defendant and/or its authorized service and repair facilities failed to service or

repair Subject Vehicle to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number

of opportunities to do so.
15.

Despite this fact, Defendant failed to promptly replace Subject Vehicle or make
restitution to Plaintiffs as required by Civil Code section 1793.2(d).
16.

Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendant's failure to comply with its

obligations under Civil Code section 1793.2(d), and therefore brings this cause of action

pursuant to Civil Code section 1794.

All subsequent references to the Civil Code refer to the California Civil Code.
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Page 4
1793.2(d) was willful, in that Defendant and its representatives knew of their legal obligations

and intentionally declined to follow them. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a civil penalty

of up to two times Plaintiffs’ actual damages, pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(c).

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANT

VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION (B) OF CIVIL CODE SECTION 1793.
6420 WILSHIRE BLVD., STE. 200, LOS ANGELES, CA
Defendant's failure to comply with its obligations under Civil Code section

PRESTIGE LEGAL SOLUTIONS, P.C.
17.
18.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs set
forth above.
19.
Defendant maintains service and repair facilities and/or designates independent

service and repair facilities (Defendant’s “representatives”). Defendant’s representatives are

intended to carry out the terms of Defendant’s express warranties.

20.
Although Plaintiffs presented Subject Vehicle to Defendant's representatives in

this state for repair of Subject Vehicle, Defendant and/or its representatives failed to commence

repairs within a reasonable time, in violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(b).

21.
Although Plaintiffs presented Subject Vehicle to Defendant's representatives in

this state for repair of Subject Vehicle, Defendant and/or its representatives failed to complete

repairs within thirty days, in violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(b). Plaintiffs did not extend

the time for completion of repairs beyond the requisite thirty days.

22.
Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendant's and/or its representatives’ failure

to comply with Civil Code section 1793.2(b). Thus, Plaintiffs bring this cause of action pursuant

to Civil Code section 1794.

23.
Plaintiffs have rightfully rejected and/or justifiably revoked acceptance of

Subject Vehicle and have exercised their right to cancel the contract. By serving this Complaint,

Plaintiffs do so again.

24.
Defendant's failure to comply with its obligations under Civil Code section
1793.2(b) was willful, in that Defendant and its representatives knew of their legal obligations
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Page 5
and intentionally declined to follow them. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a civil penalty

of two times Plaintiffs’ actual damages pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(c).

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANT

VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION (A)(3) OF CIVIL CODE SECTION 1793.
6420 WILSHIRE BLVD., STE. 200, LOS ANGELES, CA
PRESTIGE LEGAL SOLUTIONS, P.C.

25.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs set
forth above.
26.
In violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(a)(3), Defendant failed to make
available to its authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and/or
replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period.
27.
Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendant's failure to comply with its

obligations pursuant to Civil Code section 1793.2(a)(3), and therefore brings this cause of action

pursuant to Civil Code section 1794.

28.
Defendant's failure to comply with its obligations under Civil Code section

1793.2(a)(3) was willful, in that Defendant knew of its legal obligations and intentionally

declined to follow them. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a civil penalty of two times

Plaintiffs’ actual damages, pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(c).

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANT

BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

(CIV. CODE § 1791.1; § 1794)

29.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs set
forth above.
30.
Pursuant to Civil Code section 1792, the sale of Subject Vehicle was

accompanied by Defendant's implied warranty of merchantability. Pursuant to Civil Code

section 1791.1(c), the duration of the implied warranty is coextensive in duration with the

duration of the express written warranty provided by Defendant.
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Page 6 31.

Due to the aforementioned defects, Subject Vehicle was not of the same quality

as those generally acceptable in the trade; did not pass without objection in the trade; was not

fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; was not adequately contained,

packaged, and labeled; and/or did not measure up to the promises or facts stated on the container

or label.

32.
Plaintiffs were harmed by the breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

33.
Defendant's failure to comply with its obligations under the implied warranty

was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm. Thus, Plaintiffs bring this cause of action

pursuant to Civil Code section 1794.
PRAYER
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant as follows:
6420 WILSHIRE BLVD., STE. 200, LOS ANGELES, CA
PRESTIGE LEGAL SOLUTIONS, P.C.

a. For Plaintiffs’ actual damages in an amount according to proof;

b. For restitution;

c. For a civil penalty in the amount of two times Plaintiffs’ actual damages
pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(c);

d. For any consequential and incidental damages in an amount according to

proof;

e. For remedies authorized by California Commercial Code sections 2711,

2712, and/or 2713;

f. For costs and expenses of the suit, and for Plaintiffs’ reasonable

attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(d);

g. For prejudgment interest at the legal rate; and

h. For such other equitable or legal relief as the Court may deem proper.

///

///

///

///

///
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Page 7 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all causes of action asserted herein.
Dated: June 22,
PRESTIGE LEGAL SOLUTIONS, P.C.

BY:
_________________________________
Michelle Yang, Esq.
Andrea Plata, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
MATTHEW MYATTHU KHAW AND
ROSY CHAN

6420 WILSHIRE BLVD., STE. 200, LOS ANGELES, CA
PRESTIGE LEGAL SOLUTIONS, P.C.

COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
 
PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?