Villa v RV Solutions Complaint

 

Filed March 27, 2013 – San Diego County Superior Court
(Note: the Court has not yet determined whether or not the allegations in this complaint are true)

 
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL R. VACHON, ESQ.
Michael R. Vachon, Esq. (SBN 206447)
17150 Via del Campo, Suite 204
San Diego, California 92127
Tel.: (858) 674-4100
Fax: (858) 674-4222
Attorney for Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO – HALL OF JUSTICE DIVISION

DOMINGO VILLA, an individual; and
ANITA VILLA, an individual,

              Plaintiffs,

v.

RV SOLUTIONS, INC., a California corporation;
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation;
MVP RV, INC., a Delaware corporation;
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national banking association; and
DOES 1 through 75,

 
              Defendants.

Case No.: 37-2013-000941235

COMPLAINT FOR:

1.   BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY
2.   BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
      MERCHANTABILITY



SUMMARY

     1.     This is a “lemon law” lawsuit relating to a defective 2012 Tahoe 190RBS motorhome. On at least four occasions while it was under warranty Plaintiffs took the Tahoe 190RBS in for repair of a defect that consistently causes the battery to die whenever it is left sitting for 10 days or more, rendering the motorhome inoperable, and effecting preventing Plaintiffs from using it as a recreational vehicle. Defendants RV Solutions, Inc., Ford Motor Company, and MVP RV, Inc. were either unable or unwilling to properly diagnose and repair the defect, and refuse to voluntarily repurchase the motorhome.
     2.     Under the lemon law, Plaintiffs are entitled to have the Tahoe repurchased, to compensatory damages, to a civil penalty, and their attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses.

PARTIES

     3.     Plaintiffs Domingo Villa and Anita Villa are individuals residing in El Cajon, California.
     4.     Defendant RV Solutions, Inc. (hereafter “RV Solutions”), is California corporation that does business as a motorhome, RV, camper, and trailer dealer at 7620 Copley Park Place, San Diego, California.
     5.     Defendant Ford Motor Company (hereafter “FMC”), is Delaware corporation that at all material times has done business as a manufacturer of motorhome chassis for sale in this State, including San Diego County.
     6.     Defendant MVP RV, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that at all material times did business as manufacturer of motorhomes, at 5300 Via Ricardo, Riverside, California, for sale in California, including San Diego County.
     7.     Defendant Bank of America, N.A., is a national banking association that at all material times did business in the State of California, including San Diego County. Bank of America, N.A. is the lender to whom RV Solutions assigned Plaintiffs’ purchase contract for the Tahoe. Accordingly, it is liable for all equities, causes of action, and defenses that Plaintiffs can assert against RV Solutions
     8.     Plaintiffs do not know the true names and capacities, whether corporate, partnership, associate, individual or otherwise of Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, under the provisions of section 474 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Defendants Does 1 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 Defendants together with appropriate charging allegations when ascertained.
     9.     All acts of corporate employees as alleged were authorized or ratified by an officer, director or managing agent of the corporate employer.

FACTS

     10.     Plaintiffs allege the following, based on information and belief, after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
     11.     On or about March 17, 2012, Plaintiffs purchased that certain 2012 Tahoe 190RBS motorhome with vehicle identification number 1FDSE3FL3BDB23795 (the “Tahoe”) from RV Solutions, Inc. in San Diego, California. The Tahoe was assembled and partially manufactured by Defendant MVP RV, Inc. The Tahoe was also partially manufactured by FMC.
     12.     On or about May 21, 2012, Plaintiffs returned the Tahoe to RV Solutions for repair of a defect that causes the vehicle’s battery to die after sitting for 10 or more days, rendering the Tahoe inoperable (hereafter the “Defect”). RV Solutions is an authorized repair facility in California for MVP RV, Inc.’s motorhomes. RV Solutions thereafter returned the Tahoe to Plaintiffs without properly repairing the Defect; however, this repair attempt took at least 31 days.
     13.     On or about July 5, 2012, Plaintiffs returned the Tahoe to RV Solutions for repair of the Defect. RV Solutions attempted to repair the Tahoe, and when it was unable to do so, delivered the Tahoe to Kearny Pearson Ford at 7303 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, San Diego, California, for repair of the Defect. Kearny Pearson Ford is an authorized repair facility for FMC’s products. Thereafter, Kearny Pearson Ford returned the Tahoe to RV Solutions without repairing the Defect, and RV Solutions returned the Tahoe to Plaintiffs without properly repairing the Defect.
     14.     On or about August 27, 2012, Plaintiffs took the Tahoe to Kearny Pearson Ford for repair of the Defect. Kearny Pearson Ford thereafter returned the Tahoe to Plaintiffs without properly repairing the Defect.
     15.     On or about September 7, 2012, Plaintiffs returned the Tahoe to RV Solutions for repair of the Defect. RV Solutions thereafter returned the Tahoe to Plaintiffs without properly repairing the Defect.
     16.     Plaintiffs requested that RV Solutions, Ford Motor Company, and MVP RV, Inc. repurchase or replace the Tahoe under California’s “lemon law.” However, even though all of the Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffs were entitled to a vehicle repurchase or replacement under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, they refused to offer any remedy whatsoever.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Express Warranty
(Against Defendants MVP RV, Inc., FMC, and Does 1 through 10)

     17.     Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 16.
     18.     FMC and MVP RV, Inc. are the warrantors of the Tahoe’s express warranty.
     19.     Pursuant to the Tahoe’s express warranty, FMC and MVP RV, Inc. undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the Tahoe or provide compensation if there was a failure in such utility or performance.
     20.     The Tahoe has and has had serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not limited to, the Defect described above.
     21.     Under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the “Warranty Act”), the Tahoe is a “consumer good” leased primarily for family or household purposes and Plaintiffs have used the vehicle primarily for those purposes.
     22.     Plaintiffs are “buyers” of consumer goods under the Warranty Act.
     23.     The foregoing defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period. The nonconformities substantially impair the use, value and/or safety of the Tahoe.
     24.     Plaintiffs delivered the vehicle to authorized repair facilities for FMC and MVP RV, Inc. for repair of the nonconformities on numerous occasions.
     25.     Such authorized repair facilities were unable to conform the Tahoe to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts.
     26.     By failure of FMC and MVP RV, Inc. to remedy the defects as alleged above, or to issue a refund or replacement, FMC and MVP RV, Inc. are in breach of their obligations under the Act.
     27.     Plaintiffs are entitled to revoke acceptance of Tahoe under the Warranty Act, and have done so.
     28.     Under the Warranty Act, Plaintiffs are entitled to reimbursement of all payments made towards the Tahoe (less the amount directly attributable to Plaintiffs’ use of the Tahoe prior to discovery of the nonconformities).
     29.     Plaintiffs are entitled to damages resulting from FMC’s and MVP RV, Inc.’s failure to comply with their obligations under the Warranty Act.
     30.     Plaintiffs are entitled under the Warranty 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.
     31.     Plaintiffs are entitled, in addition to the other amounts recovered, to a civil penalty of up to two times the amount of actual damages because FMC and MVP RV, Inc. willfully failed to comply with their responsibilities under the Warranty Act.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability
(Against RV Solutions, Bank of America, N.A., and Does 1 through 10)

     32.     Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 31.
     33.     Plaintiffs’ purchase of the Tahoe was accompanied by RV Solutions’s implied warranty of merchantability.
     34.     The implied warranty of merchantability means and includes that the Tahoe will comply with each of the following requirements: (1) it would pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; (2) it is fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; (3) it was adequately contained, packaged, and labeled; and (4) it conforms to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.
     35.     The Tahoe’s Defect constitutes a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability because the Tahoe (1) would not pass without objection in the trade under the contract description, (2) is not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used, (3) was not adequately contained, packaged, and labeled, and (4) does not conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.
     36.     Plaintiffs have rightfully rejected and/or justifiably revoked acceptance of the Tahoe, and are entitled to rescind the Tahoe’s purchase contract and to restitution of all money paid towards the Tahoe’s purchase contract.
     37.     Plaintiffs have been proximately damaged by RV Solutions’s failure to comply with its obligations under the implied warranty.
     38.     Plaintiffs are entitled to the remedies provided in California Civil Code section 1794, including their attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

     Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, as follows:

1.     For damages of $73,547.36, or such other amount as proven at trial, and punitive damages;
2.     For rescission of the purchase contract and restitution of all money paid towards the purchase
        of the Tahoe;
3.     For a civil penalty of $147,094.72 as permitted under the Warranty Act;
4.     For prejudgment interest at the legal rate;
5.     For attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and out-of-pocket expenses; and
6.     For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.

                                                                      LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL R. VACHON, ESQ.
                                                                      Attorney for Plaintiffs Domingo & Anita Villa
Date: March 26, 2013                                 Michael R. Vachon, Esq.

 


The Vachon Law Firm accepts cases ANYWHERE in the State of California:

Los Angeles County

Orange County

San Diego County

San Bernardino

Marin County

Alameda County

Oxnard

Sacramento County

Riverside County

Fresno