complaint - Got a Class Action?
Transcription
complaint - Got a Class Action?
Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page1 of 13 1 7 Eric H. Gibbs (SBN 178658) Dylan Hughes (SBN 209113) Steve Lopez (SBN 300540) GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 ehg@classlawgroup.com dsh@classlawgroup.com sal@classlawgroup.com 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff 2 3 4 5 6 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 BETH GRAHAM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, 13 14 15 16 17 Case No. _______________ CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., Defendant. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page2 of 13 1 NATURE OF THE CASE 2 1. Plaintiff and the class members she proposes to represent are owners or lessees of 2011- 3 2015 Hyundai Sonatas that were manufactured with an undisclosed defect in the engine’s rotating 4 assembly. The rotating assembly cannot withstand the long-term stress generated within the Sonata’s 5 combustion chambers and fails within the useful life of the engine (most failures occur between 60,000 6 to 90,000 miles). When the rotating assembly fails, it does so without warning and causes the engine to 7 seize suddenly—leaving Sonata drivers without power and struggling to maneuver the vehicle to safety. 8 9 2. Rather than addressing this safety problem by warning drivers and recalling its dangerous vehicles, Hyundai has concealed the problem from consumers and implemented a concerted practice of 10 denying warranty coverage for failed engines. Hyundai tells Sonata owners that they must submit a 11 complete record of the vehicle’s maintenance history before making a warranty claim—even though it 12 knows that Sonata engines fail regardless of owner maintenance and that the faulty rotating assembly is 13 responsible. For those warranty claims that are submitted, Hyundai’s practice is to deny them based on 14 inadequate maintenance records or improper maintenance. Hyundai denies that engine failures are 15 widespread in Sonata vehicles and blames its customers for the problem—forcing them to pay as much 16 as $10,000 for an engine replacement. 3. 17 Plaintiff now brings this proposed class action against Hyundai for violating California’s 18 consumer protection laws. Among other things, Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Hyundai to 19 immediately disclose the existence of the rotating assembly defect and its associated risks to all existing 20 and prospective customers, to repair the defect and all resulting damage in Sonata vehicles free of 21 charge, and to cease selling Sonatas through its dealerships until the defect is repaired. 22 PARTIES 4. 23 24 Plaintiff Beth Graham is a citizen and resident of Pingree Grove, located in Kane County, Illinois. 5. 25 Defendant Hyundai Motor America (“Hyundai”) is headquartered in Fountain Valley, 26 California. Hyundai is a wholly-owned American subsidiary of Hyundai Motor Company of Korea, for 27 which it serves as a general manager and exclusive distributor of Hyundai vehicles within the United 28 States. 1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page3 of 13 1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2 6. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the Class Action Fairness 3 Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). The aggregated claims of the individual class members exceed the sum or 4 value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and this is a class action in which more than two- 5 thirds of the proposed plaintiff class, on the one hand, and Hyundai, on the other, are citizens of different 6 states. 7 7. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Hyundai resides in 8 this district and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in 9 this District. 10 11 INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 8. Assignment is proper to the San Jose division of this District under Local Rule 3-2(c)-(e), 12 as a substantial part of the events or omissions which give rise to the claim occurred in San Jose County. 13 SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS 14 15 16 9. Defendant Hyundai is the manufacturer, distributor, and warrantor of all 2011-2015 Hyundai Sonata vehicles sold within the United States—referred to hereafter as “Class Vehicles.” 10. Class Vehicles are sold with a 5-year / 60,000-mile New Vehicle Warranty and a 10-year 17 /100,000-mile Powertrain Warranty. The New Vehicle Warranty covers original components found to 18 be defective in material or workmanship under normal use and maintenance. The Powertrain Warranty 19 covers powertrain components—including the engine block and all internal parts—found to be defective 20 in material or workmanship under normal use and maintenance. The Powertrain Warranty applies only 21 to the original purchaser and to purchasers of certified pre-owned vehicles, and commences upon the 22 expiration of the New Vehicle Warranty. 23 11. Unbeknownst to Hyundai’s consumers, Class Vehicles are also sold with defective 24 rotating assemblies that cause sudden and catastrophic engine failure. The rotating assembly is the part 25 of the engine responsible for converting linear motion into rotational motion. It is supposed to take the 26 power generated within the combustion chambers and transfer it from the pistons and through the 27 crankshaft. The entire rotating assembly, as it is called, consists of a crankshaft, pistons, piston 28 2 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page4 of 13 1 assembly, connecting rods, bearings, as well as the lubrication passages needed to keep the assembly 2 properly lubricated. 3 12. The rotating assembly in Class Vehicles is not properly manufactured to withstand the 4 combustion forces over the life of the engine. It eventually succumbs to the long-term stress and stops 5 converting the piston’s linear motion to the rotational motion of the crankshaft. There are no warning 6 signs that the rotating assembly is about to fail, but when it does, it causes the engine to abruptly seize— 7 leaving Sonata drivers stranded and in need of a new engine block. 8 13. Sudden Sonata engine seizures have become widespread as a result of the rotating 9 assembly defect. Over a hundred reports have been posted online—including on the National Highway 10 Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) website and on Hyundai owner forums—and likely thousands 11 more have experienced the same thing but not taken the time to post about their experience. The issue 12 has become so common that when one Sonata owner suffered an engine seizure and had her car towed to 13 the local Hyundai dealership, she found that four other Sonatas were already at the dealership for the 14 same issue. 15 14. 16 17 The cost of replacing a Sonata engine that has failed because of the defect runs between $5,000 and $10,000—depending on labor costs and whether the replacement engine is new or used. 15. But it is not only the high cost of engine failures that has Sonata owners so concerned. 18 When the engines fail, they do so with no warning and expose drivers, passengers, and others on the 19 road to significant risk. Sonata owners have been driving at 70 miles per hour or in the middle of rush- 20 hour traffic when their engines suddenly froze, leaving their vehicles without power, without power 21 steering, and without power brakes. Making matters worse, smoke can billow from the engine and 22 obscure drivers’ vision as they attempt to maneuver the vehicle to safety. On rare occasions, the abrupt 23 loss of lubrication has even started a fire in the engine compartment. The experience of a sudden engine 24 failure is often a harrowing affair for Sonata owners—several of whom have reported near accidents and 25 called on Hyundai to conduct a safety recall. 26 27 16. Hyundai is, of course, currently aware that Sonata engines are seizing in record numbers. It provides Hyundai dealerships with replacement engines and carefully tracks both part sales and the 28 3 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page5 of 13 1 type of repairs conducted by its dealerships. In addition, many Sonata owners have complained to their 2 dealership and to Hyundai’s corporate office—to no avail. 3 17. The strong likelihood is that Hyundai knew of the rotating assembly defect much earlier, 4 likely before Class Vehicles were ever released to the public. Discovery and review of Hyundai’s 5 internal records will be necessary to know for certain, but the rotating assembly defect is one that would 6 typically be discovered during standard pre-release testing. Hyundai, like all automakers, subjects its 7 rotating assemblies to material stress tests and accelerated testing designed to ensure that the assembly 8 will withstand typical engine forces for at least 10 years and 150,000 miles. The severe and widespread 9 nature of this particular defect is unlikely to escape pre-release testing. More likely, Hyundai did not 10 know how to fix the issue quickly and was unwilling to incur the expense and delay associated with re- 11 manufacturing the Sonata’s rotating assembly. 12 18. The prepared and concerted way in which Hyundai has responded as Sonata owners have 13 suffered from seized engines, strongly supports Plaintiff’s allegation that Hyundai has long known about 14 the rotating assembly defect. If Hyundai had learned only recently that its Sonatas are suffering from an 15 extremely high number of engine failures, one would acknowledge the issue and repair the vehicles 16 under warranty or pursuant to a safety recall. Instead, Hyundai is continuing to deny that anything is 17 wrong with the Sonata’s rotating assembly, actively concealing the widespread nature of the problem, 18 and systematically blaming its customers to minimize its warranty costs. 19 19. Hyundai has never disclosed the rotating assembly defect to consumers—through its 20 dealerships or otherwise. It has not even stopped selling Sonata vehicles with defective rotating 21 assemblies; it continues to sell them—without including any warning—as both new vehicles and used 22 vehicles. 23 20. Most engine failures occur within the 10-year /100,000-mile Powertrain Warranty that 24 Hyundai provides with its new and certified pre-owned vehicles, but Hyundai employs a concerted 25 practice to avoid paying for engine replacements. Even though Hyundai knows that the rotating 26 assembly defect—and not driver maintenance—is responsible for Sonata engine failures, it instructs its 27 dealers to blame them failures on poor maintenance and to tell Sonata owners that they must a complete 28 maintenance history (including all receipts) before they can make a warranty claim. For those Sonata 4 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page6 of 13 1 owners who are not discouraged and do make a warranty claim, Hyundai’s practice is to deny warranty 2 coverage based on inadequate maintenance records or improper maintenance. And if a customer calls to 3 complain, Hyundai’s practice is to blame the problem on improper maintenance and deny that engine 4 failures are widespread in Sonatas and the result of a systemic defect. 5 21. The safety hazard posed by the Sonata’s rotating assembly defect, along with the 6 exorbitant repair costs Hyundai is shifting to its consumers by systematically denying warranty 7 coverage, will only worsen if nothing is done soon. The Sonata rotating assembly defect typically takes 8 around 60,000 to 95,000 miles before it manifests itself in catastrophic engine failure—so the problem 9 will only get worse as more Sonata owners reach this mileage. To date, the vast majority of reported 10 engine failures have occurred in 2011 Sonatas. But 2012 Sonatas are following a similar pattern, with 11 complaints of engine seizures now beginning to accrue (just as they did about a year ago with 2011 12 Sonatas). And 2013-2015 Sonatas will likely follow the same pattern as well since Hyundai has yet to 13 fix the defect and continues to use the same defective rotating assembly in those vehicles as well. 14 15 16 17 PLAINTIFF’S EXPERIENCE 22. Last year, Plaintiff Beth Graham purchased a used 2011 Hyundai Sonata with 65,000 miles from Elgin Hyundai in Elgin, Illinois. 23. In January 2015, Ms. Graham’s husband was driving the Sonata on the highway during 18 rush hour when the engine suddenly seized and the engine turned off. Fortunately, Mr. Graham was 19 able to coast to the side of the highway and call a tow truck. 20 24. At the time the engine seized, the Grahams had owned the car for about seven months 21 and put an additional 14,000 miles on the vehicle—for about 79,000 miles in all. Hyundai refused to 22 cover the full cost of the repair. After several calls to Hyundai’s regional office, Hyundai agreed to pay 23 a portion of the cost as a “goodwill gesture.” Ms. Graham was still required to pay $2,000 for the 24 engine repair, about $800 for a rental car while her Sonata was being repaired, and about $150 for 25 towing and an initial diagnosis. 26 25. At no time before or after Ms. Graham purchased her Sonata did Hyundai or its 27 dealership inform her of the car’s rotating assembly defect or the defect’s implications for the engine 28 and her safety. Had she been told, Ms. Graham would not have purchased the 2011 Sonata. 5 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page7 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 26. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and a proposed class initially defined as: All persons who purchased or leased a 2011-2015 Hyundai Sonata within the United States. 27. Excluded from the proposed class is Hyundai; any affiliate, parent, or subsidiary of 7 Hyundai; any entity in which Hyundai has a controlling interest; any officer, director, or employee of 8 Hyundai; any successor or assign of Hyundai; and any judge to whom this case is assigned and any 9 member of his or her immediate family. 10 28. Numerosity. Hyundai has sold hundreds of thousands of Class Vehicles, such that there 11 are far too many class members to be practically joined in a single action. Class members may be 12 notified of the pendency of this action by mail, supplemented (if deemed necessary or appropriate by the 13 Court) by published notice. 14 29. Existence and predominance of common questions. Common questions of law and fact 15 exist as to all members of the proposed class and predominate over questions affecting only individual 16 class members. These common questions include: 17 a. Whether the rotating assembly in Class Vehicles is defective; 18 b. Whether the defect causes sudden engine failure and poses a safety hazard to consumers; 19 c. 20 customers; 21 d. 22 Whether the defect and its consequences would be considered material by an objectively reasonable person; and 23 e. 24 Whether it is unfair under the UCL for Hyundai to sell or fail to recall dangerous vehicles. 25 26 Whether Hyundai had a duty to disclose the defect and its consequences to its 30. Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the proposed classes. Plaintiff 27 and the class members or she proposes to represent purchased a Class Vehicle that contains the same 28 defective rotating assembly, giving rise to substantially the same claims. 6 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page8 of 13 1 31. Adequacy. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the proposed classes because her 2 interests do not conflict with the interests of the class members she seeks to represent. Plaintiff has 3 retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action litigation, and Plaintiff intends to 4 prosecute this action vigorously. 5 32. Superiority. The action may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) because common questions 6 predominate as described above and because a class action is the best available method for the fair and 7 efficient adjudication of this controversy. This litigation involves technical issues that will require 8 expert testimony and targeted discovery of a sophisticated defendant, and could not practically be taken 9 on by individual litigants. In addition, individual litigation of class members’ claims would be 10 impracticable and unduly burdensome to the court system and has the potential to lead to inconsistent 11 results. A class action presents fewer management problems and provides the benefits of single 12 adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. 13 33. In the alternative to class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), the proposed class may be 14 certified under Rule 23(b)(2) because Hyundai has acted or refused to act on grounds generally 15 applicable to the class, thereby making final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory appropriate 16 with respect to the class as a whole. 17 18 CHOICE OF LAW ALLEGATIONS 34. The State of California has sufficient contacts to the conduct alleged herein such that 19 California law may be uniformly applied to the claims of the proposed nationwide class. Hyundai does 20 substantial business in California, its principal offices are located in California, and it maintains over 50 21 authorized dealerships in California—more than any other state. 22 35. The conduct that forms the basis for each and every class members’ claims against 23 Hyundai emanated from Hyundai’s headquarters in Fountain Valley, California. Hyundai’s marketing 24 department, warranty department, customer affairs department, and engineering and design analysis 25 groups are all located in Fountain Valley, California, and it is those departments who were responsible 26 for the decision to conceal the rotating assembly defect from Hyundai’s customers and to systematically 27 deny warranty coverage for resulting engine failures based on improper maintenance and inadequate 28 maintenance records. 7 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page9 of 13 1 36. The State of California also has the greatest interest in applying its law to class members’ 2 claims. Its governmental interests include not only an interest in compensating resident consumers 3 under its consumer protection laws, but also what the State has characterized as a “compelling” interest 4 in using its laws to regulate a resident corporation and preserve a business climate free of fraud and 5 deceptive practices. Diamond Multimedia Sys. v. Sup. Ct., 19 Cal. 4th 1036, 1064 (1999). 6 37. Were other states’ laws applied to class members’ claims, California’s interest in 7 discouraging resident corporations from engaging in the sort of unfair and deceptive practices alleged in 8 this complaint would be significantly impaired. California could not effectively regulate a corporate 9 citizen like Hyundai, who does business throughout the United States, if it can only ensure that 10 consumers from one of the fifty states affected by conduct that runs afoul of its laws are compensated. 11 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION For Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq. 12 13 38. Plaintiff re-alleges, as if fully set forth, each and every allegation herein. 14 39. Hyundai has violated the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 15 1770(a)(5), (7), (14), and (16), by engaging in unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive 16 acts and practices in connection with transactions—namely, the sale of Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and 17 class members—that are intended to result and have resulted in the sale and lease of goods to 18 consumers. 19 40. In connection with the sale of Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and class members, Hyundai 20 omitted material information about those vehicles which it was legally obligated to disclose. Hyundai 21 has never informed Plaintiff or class members—at the point of sale or otherwise—that the rotating 22 assembly in Class Vehicles is defective and can cause sudden engine failure. 23 41. The Class Vehicle’s faulty rotating assembly poses an unreasonable safety risk to 24 consumers and other members of the public with whom they share the road. Hyundai had exclusive 25 knowledge of the defect and has actively concealed it from consumers. 26 42. As a result of Hyundai’s violations of the CLRA, Plaintiff and Class members have 27 suffered damages. Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased Class Vehicles had the defect 28 and associated risks been disclosed to them. In addition, Plaintiff and other class members have 8 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page10 of 13 1 incurred significant repair costs, including expensive engine replacements, diagnostic expenses, towing 2 costs, and rental car expenses as a result of the defect. They are left with vehicles of diminished value 3 and utility because of the defect, which continues to pose a safety risk. 4 43. Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Hyundai to immediately disclose the existence of the 5 rotating assembly defect and associated risks to all existing and prospective customers, to repair the 6 defect and all resulting damage in Class Vehicles free of charge, and to cease selling new or certified 7 pre-owned Class Vehicles through its dealerships until the defect is remedied. In addition, Plaintiff will 8 serve Hyundai with a notice letter to provide Hyundai with the opportunity to correct its business 9 practices pursuant to Civil Code § 1782. If Hyundai does not thereafter correct its business practices, 10 Plaintiff will amend this action to add claims for monetary relief, including restitution and actual 11 damages under the CLRA. 12 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. 13 14 44. Plaintiff re-alleges, as if fully set forth, each and every allegation herein. 15 45. Hyundai has violated and continues to violate California’s Unfair Competition Law 16 17 18 19 (UCL), which prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent acts and practices. 46. Hyundai’s conduct, as alleged in this complaint, constitutes an unlawful practice under the UCL in that it violates the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. 47. Hyundai’s failure to disclose material facts to class members—namely, the rotating 20 assembly defect and its implications for the vehicles’ engines and class members’ safety—constitutes a 21 fraudulent business practice under the UCL, as it is likely to deceive an objectively reasonable 22 consumer. 23 48. Hyundai’s sale of defective vehicles and failure to recall those vehicles are each unfair 24 business practices under the UCL. The practices are unethical, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious 25 to consumers; any legitimate utility of the practices are outweighed by the harm to consumers; the injury 26 is not one that consumer reasonably could have avoid; and/or the practice run afoul of the public safety 27 policies underlying the Highway Safety Act, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and 28 California’s Secret Warranty Law, among others, as well as the consumer protection policies underlying 9 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page11 of 13 1 the CLRA. 2 49. As a result of Hyundai’s violations of the UCL, Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact and 3 lost money or property. Ms. Graham purchased a vehicle she would not otherwise have purchased, 4 suffered a catastrophic engine failure and incurred significant expense to replace the engine, and is left 5 with a vehicle of diminished value. 6 50. Plaintiff and class members seek equitable relief under the UCL, including restitution of 7 all revenue accruing to Hyundai or its dealerships as a result of Hyundai’s violations, declaratory relief, 8 a permanent injunction prohibiting Hyundai from continuing to violate the UCL, and an award of 9 attorney fees and costs. 10 11 TOLLING 51. Any applicable statute of limitations that might otherwise bar any class member’s claims 12 is tolled by Hyundai’s knowing and active concealment of the Class Vehicle’s defective rotating 13 assemblies. Hyundai kept Plaintiff and the members of the class ignorant of vital information essential 14 to the pursuit of their claims. Class members could not reasonably have discovered that their rotating 15 assemblies were defective until their engines suddenly seized. Even then, Hyundai continued to actively 16 conceal that the rotating assembly defect by denying the existence of a widespread problem and blaming 17 engine failures on poor maintenance. 18 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 19 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: 20 a. 21 22 For an order certifying the proposed class and appointing Plaintiff and her counsel to represent the class; b. For an order requiring Hyundai to immediately disclose the existence of the rotating 23 assembly defect and associated risks to all existing and prospective customers, to repair 24 the rotating assembly defect and all resulting damage in Class Vehicles free of charge, 25 and to cease selling Class Vehicles through its dealerships until the rotating assembly 26 defect is repaired; 27 28 10 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page12 of 13 1 c. For an order awarding Plaintiff and class members actual, statutory, punitive or any other 2 form of damages provided by statute, except that no monetary relief is presently sought 3 for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act; 4 d. For an order awarding Plaintiff and class members restitution, disgorgement or other 5 equitable relief provided by statute or as the Court deems proper, except that no monetary 6 relief is presently sought for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act; 7 e. 8 9 judgment interest; f. 10 11 12 For an order awarding Plaintiff and the members of the classes pre-judgment and post- For an order awarding Plaintiff and the members of the classes reasonable attorney fees and costs of suit, including expert witness fees; and g. For an order awarding such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. 13 14 15 16 DATED: May 7, 2015 Respectfully submitted, GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP By: /s/ Eric H. Gibbs 17 18 23 Dylan Hughes Steve Lopez One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 ehg@classlawgroup.com dsh@classlawgroup.com sal@classlawgroup.com 24 Attorneys for Plaintiff 19 20 21 22 25 26 27 28 11 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page13 of 13 1 2 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all claims so triable. 3 4 5 6 DATED: May 7, 2015 Respectfully submitted, GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP By: /s/ Eric H. Gibbs 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Dylan Hughes Steve Lopez One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 ehg@classlawgroup.com dsh@classlawgroup.com sal@classlawgroup.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT JS 44 (Rev. 12/12) cand rev (1/15/13) Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1-1 Filed05/07/15 Page1 of 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS Beth Graham, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Hyundai Motor America, Inc. County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Kane County, IL (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) NOTE: (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Orange County, CA (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. Attorneys (If Known) Eric H Gibbs Gibbs Law Group LLP - One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125 Oakland, CA 94612 - (510) 350-9700 II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) ’ 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff ’ 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party) ’ 2 U.S. Government Defendant ’ 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) CONTRACT ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ DEF ’ 1 Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State ’ 5 ’ 5 Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6 TORTS 110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment 151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excludes Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran’s Benefits 160 Stockholders’ Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ (For Diversity Cases Only) PTF Citizen of This State ’ 1 REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ PERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers’ Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury 362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice CIVIL RIGHTS 440 Other Civil Rights 441 Voting 442 Employment 443 Housing/ Accommodations 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other 448 Education FORFEITURE/PENALTY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 365 Personal Injury Product Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 380 Other Personal Property Damage ’ 385 Property Damage Product Liability PRISONER PETITIONS Habeas Corpus: ’ 463 Alien Detainee ’ 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence ’ 530 General ’ 535 Death Penalty Other: ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 550 Civil Rights ’ 555 Prison Condition ’ 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of Confinement ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 690 Other and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4 of Business In This State BANKRUPTCY ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 830 Patent ’ 840 Trademark ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ LABOR 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 720 Labor/Management Relations 740 Railway Labor Act 751 Family and Medical Leave Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Employee Retirement Income Security Act ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ SOCIAL SECURITY 861 HIA (1395ff) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g)) FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) ’ 871 IRS—Third Party 26 USC 7609 OTHER STATUTES ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ 375 False Claims Act 400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters 895 Freedom of Information Act 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes IMMIGRATION ’ 462 Naturalization Application ’ 465 Other Immigration Actions V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only) ’ 1 Original Proceeding ’ 2 Removed from State Court ’ 3 Remanded from Appellate Court ’ 4 Reinstated or Reopened ’ 5 Transferred from Another District (specify) ’ 6 Multidistrict Litigation Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause: Violations of California statutes relating to unfair competition DEMAND $ ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION VII. REQUESTED IN UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. COMPLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions): IF ANY JUDGE Hon. Beth L. Freeman DATE CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: ’ Yes ’ No JURY DEMAND: DOCKET NUMBER C 5:15-1685 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD /s/ Eric H. Gibbs 05/07/2015 ,;',9,6,21$/$66,*10(17&LYLO/5 (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Print ( ) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND Save As... ( ) SAN JOSE ( ) EUREKA Reset JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/12) Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1-1 Filed05/07/15 Page2 of 2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I.(a) (b) (c) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)". II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive. V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes. Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above. VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
Similar documents
Find High Quality Automotive Touch up Paint for Cars
At Colorndrive.com, we provide high quality automotive touch up paint for cars & scratch repair do it yourself kit. Paints provided by us are exactly matched paint color code of your car. Order today! Super fast shipping & wonderful products! Visit Us: https://colorndrive.com/en
More information