Landmark Decisions
The law firm of Krohn & Moss, Ltd. (“K&M”) was founded in 1995 by attorneys Adam J. Krohn and Gregory H. Moss to provide competent legal representation to consumers with defective vehicles and products. Since its inception, K&M has expanded from its initial practice limited solely to the State of Illinois to assisting consumers throughout the nation including within the States of California, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Arizona, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Nevada, Texas and Wisconsin.
In 1998, K&M expanded its representation of consumers by starting a consumer fraud division concentrating mainly in automobile fraud claims such as odometer tampering, automobile dealership financing scams and vehicle history misrepresentations. In 2002, K&M further expanded its areas of expertise by accepting cases on behalf of victimized consumers with credit reporting and debt collection issues by bringing claims under both the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
In sum, K&M has made great effort and significant strides in assisting over fifty-thousand (50,000) consumers via litigation stemming from settlement all the way through the appellate process which has ultimately made a profound impact on consumer protection law across the country. Legal research will yield close to two hundred (200) Krohn & Moss, Ltd. favorable reported decisions from state appellate courts, state supreme courts, and federal courts. These decisions detail tremendous achievements for consumers involving such matters as consumer fraud, warranty law and fair debt reporting and collection issues.
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS
STATE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
| Case and Cite | Jurisdiction | Summary |
| Johnson v. Earnhardt’s Gilbert Dodge, Inc., 132 P.3d 825, 212 Ariz. 381 (Ariz. S.Ct., Apr. 25, 2006) | Arizona | Used car purchaser sued dealer alleging breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and seeking revocation of purchase. Trial court granted summary judgment for dealer, finding that purchaser had not “entered into” warranty agreement with dealer. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court, en banc, vacated the Court of Appeals decision and reversed trial court’s grant of summary judgment holding that an issue of fact remained whether dealer was party to service contract. |
| American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Cerasani, 955 So.2d 543, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75, 671, 32 Fla. L. Weekly S131 (Fla. S.Ct., Apr. 12, 2007) | Florida | Lessee of new automobile brought action against automobile manufacturer for breach of written and implied warranties under Magnuson-Moss Act. The trial court dismissed complaint with prejudice and lessee appealed. The District Court of Appeal reversed dismissal for breach of written warranty claim. The Supreme Court affirmed District Court’s decision holding that a lessee could assert a cause of action for breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. |
| Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 875 N.E.2d 1047, 226 Ill.2d 307, 314 Ill.Dec. 760, 64 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 44 (Ill. S.Ct., Sept. 20, 2007) | Illinois | Buyer of used automobile brought action against automobile manufacturer under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act alleging breach of written warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and revocation of acceptance. The trial court granted manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment and buyer appealed. The Appellate Court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of manufacturer as to buyer’s breach of written warranty claim. The Supreme Court affirmed. |
| Razor v. Hundai Motor America, 222 Ill.2d 75, 854 N.E.2d 697, 60 UC Rep.Serv.2d 426 (Ill. S.Ct., Jun. 29, 2006) | Illinois | Car buyer brought breach of warranty action against car manufacturer. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict for buyer and manufacturer appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed and manufacturer petitioned for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order representing that portion of the jury verdict intended to recompense buyer for consequential damages incurred. The Supreme Court held that an owner of an automobile may testify to the value of their vehicle and that a manufacturer’s disclaimer of damages contained within the warranty was unconscionable. |
| Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Wagner, 838 N.E.2d 450 (Ill. S.Ct., Dec. 7, 2005) | Indiana | Car buyer brought action against manufacturer, alleging breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, violation of state Motor Vehicle Protection Act, and revocation of acceptance under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The trial court denied manufacturer’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration. Manufacturer filed an interlocutory appeal, and transfer was granted. Car buyer moved to dismiss the appeal. The Supreme Court held that rule permitting appellate court to pass upon adjudicated issues even if case was not finally disposed of in the trial court did not authorize an interlocutory appeal that failed to comply with requirement of certification by trial court. As such, the Supreme Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion and dismissed Chrysler’s Appeal. |
| Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Yeager, 838 N.E.2d 449 (Ill. S.Ct., Dec. 7, 2005) | Indiana | Car buyer brought action against manufacturer, alleging breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, violation of state Motor Vehicle Protection Act, and revocation of acceptance under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The trial court denied manufacturer’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration. Manufacturer filed interlocutory appeal, and transfer was granted. Car buyer moved to dismiss the appeal. The Supreme Court held that rule permitting appellate court to pass upon adjudicated issues even if case was not finally disposed of in the trial court did not authorize an interlocutory appeal that failed to comply with requirement of certification by trial. As such, the Supreme Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion and dismissed Chrysler’s Appeal. |
| Hyundai Motors America v. Goodin, 822 N.E.2d 947 (Ind. S.Ct., Feb. 22, 2005) | Indiana | Car buyer brought action against manufacturer, alleging breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and revocation of acceptance. Following a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of buyer on claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability. Manufacturer appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, due to lack of vertical privity between buyer and manufacturer. The Supreme Court affirmed trial court’s judgment in favor of purchaser on claim for breach of warranty and merchantability. In doing so, the Supreme Court abolished the doctrine of privity of contract as a prerequisite to bring an implied warranty action against an automobile manufacturer. |
| Mayberry v. Volkswagen of America, Inc ., 692 N.W.2d 226, 278 Wis.2d 39, 2005-1 Trade Cases P 74, 710, 56 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 214, 2005 WI 13 (Wis. S.Ct., Feb. 16, 2005) | Wisconsin | Vehicle buyer brought claims against manufacturer under federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act for breach of written warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and revocation of acceptance, but after filing the complaint she traded-in the vehicle. The trial court granted summary judgment to manufacturer and buyer appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin granted review. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed holding that the buyer driving the vehicle 32,737 miles and then reselling the vehicle for more than fair market value did not preclude buyer from establishing damages for breach of warranty sufficient to survive summary judgment. |
| Peterson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc ., 697 N.W.2d 61, 281 Wis.2d 39 (Wis. S.Ct., May 27, 2005) | Wisconsin | Automobile lessee brought action against manufacturer under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act alleging breach of written warranty and breach of implied warranty. The trial court granted manufacturer’s motion to dismiss and lessee appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed. Review was granted and the Supreme Court affirmed holding that lessee was a “consumer” entitled to enforce written warranty under MMWA . |
APPELLATE COURT DECISIONS
| Case and Cite | Jurisdiction | Summary |
| Lemons v. Showcase Motors, Inc., 207 Ariz. 537, 88 P.3d 1149, 2004-1 Trade Cases P 74, 399, 424 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 17, (Ariz. App. Div. 1, Apr. 29, 2004) | Arizona | Buyer of an “as is” used car brought action against dealership for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, alleging brake failure, defective power windows, and frame damage. The trial court granted summary judgment for dealership and buyer appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed finding genuine issue of fact existed as to whether dealership was party to vehicle dealer service contract precluding summary judgment. |
| Mago v. Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A, Inc., 142 P.3d 712, 213 Ariz. 404 (Ariz.App., Sept. 7, 2006) | Arizona | Lessee of vehicle filed action against dealer to recover under Arizona Motor Vehicle Warranties Act, or the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act for vehicle defects that substantially impaired its use, value and safety. The trial court entered summary judgment for dealer and lessee appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed portion of summary judgment in favor of dealer holding lessee was eligible for warranty coverage warrant under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. |
| Moedt v. General Motors Corp., 60 P.3d 240, 204 Ariz. 100 (Ariz.App., Dec. 24, 2002) | Arizona | After automobile owner’s Lemon Law action against manufacturer was settled, owner sought attorney fees pursuant to Lemon Law provision. The trial court awarded $712 and manufacturer appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed holding that owner could recover under Lemon Law provision authorizing award of attorney fees to consumer who prevailed in action. |
| Andreasen v. Hyndai Motor America, 2005 WL 2885621, No. H027579, Santa Clara Super. Ct. No. CV002884 (Ct. of Appeal, 6th Dist. Nov. 3, 2005) | California | Car buyer filed an action against manufacturer alleging violation of the Song Beverly Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The parties reached a settlement and manufacturer agreed to pay car buyer $8,000 and reasonable attorneys’ fees to be determined by the court. The trial court granted car buyer $2,666.66 in attorneys’ fees and car buyer appealed. The Appellate Court reversed holding that the trial court erred by proportioning the fees to the amount of settlement instead of determining what amount of the claimed fees were reasonably incurred. |
| Brunner v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, 2007 WL 1021392, No. D047897, S.D. Super.Ct. No. GIS14961 (Cal. Ct. of Appeal, 4th Dist., Division 1, Apr. 5, 2007) | California | Car buyer obtained a verdict against manufacturer for breach of warranty under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The trial court denied manufacturer’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and granted new trial only as to issue of damages. Manufacturer appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting new trial only on issue of damages and car buyer had presented sufficient evidence of his damages to deny a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. |
| Isip v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,65 Cal.Rptr.3d 695 (Cal. Ct. of Appeal, 2 Dist., Div. 5, Review denied Nov. 28, 2007). | California | Buyer of car brought action against manufacturer for breach of express and implied warranties. The trial court entered judgment on jury verdict for buyer and manufacturer appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision holding that to show car was unfit for ordinary purpose for implied warranty of merchantability did not require showing that it was unfit for purpose of providing transportation. |
| Isip v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 2007 WL 4374856, No. B194058, L.A. Super. Ct. No. KC045799, (Cal.App. 2 District, Division 5, Dec. 17, 2007). | California | Manufacturer appealed an order awarding attorney fees following a judgment in favor of vehicle buyer. Manufacturer contends that the amount of the fee award was unreasonable and the trial court should have apportioned fees. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision and concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. |
| Isip v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 695 (Cal. Ct. of Appeal, 2 Dist., Div. 5, Review denied Nov. 28, 2007) | California | Buyer of car brought action against manufacturer for breach of express and implied warranties. The trial court entered judgment on jury verdict for buyer and manufacturer appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision holding that an automobile must be safe and substantially free from defects in order for it to be fit for its ordinary purpose. |
| Isip v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 2007 WL 4374856, No. B194058, L.A. Super. Ct. No. KC045799, (Cal.App. 2 District, Division 5, Dec. 17, 2007) | California | Manufacturer appealed an order awarding attorney fees following a judgment in favor of vehicle buyer. Manufacturer contends that the amount of the fee award was unreasonable and the trial court should have apportioned fees. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision and concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. |
| Kirkton v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, 2008 WL 1947916, No. B199285, L.A. Super. Ct. No. KC047553 (Cal. Ct. of Appeal, 2nd Dist., Div. 7 May 6, 2008) | California | Car buyer brought breach of warranty claim against manufacturer under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The jury awarded car buyer $32,000 and manufacturer appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting car buyer’s opinion testimony concerning diminution in value of the car. |
| Sawyer v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 2007 WL 2070458, No. H029592, No. CV023811 (Cal.App. 6 Dist., July 20, 2007) | California | Car manufacturer appeals a judgment in favor of car buyer on a claim under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment. |
| Arrate v. Volkswagen of America, Inc ., 932 So.2d 363, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D819 (Fla. App. 2 Dist., Mar. 17, 2006) | Florida | Appeal from a final judgment dismissing, with prejudice, a civil suit concerning the purchase of an allegedly defective automobile. Appellate Court’ reversed trial court’s conclusion that the dispute was subject to mandatory arbitration. |
| Burns v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 914 So.2d 451, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D2358 (Fla.App. 4 Dist., Dec. 8, 2005) | Florida | Car buyer brought action against manufacturer under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act after the Lemon Law Arbitration Board found his car to be a “lemon” within the meaning of the Lemon Law. The trial court granted summary judgment to manufacturer based on res judicata and buyer appealed. The District Court of Appeal reversed holding that Lemon Law Arbitration Board lacked authority to hear Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim. |
| Brophy v. DaimlerChrysler Corp ., 932 So.2d 272, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D2469 (Fla.App. 2 Dist., Oct. 21, 2005) | Florida | Lessee of automobile brought action against automobile’s manufacturer and dealership asserting breach of a written warranty and breach of implied warranty under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Trial court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss and lessee appealed. Appellate court reversed the dismissal for breach of the manufacturer’s written warranty. |
| Cano v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc .,8 So.3d 408, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D592 (Ill.App. 4 Dist., Mar. 18, 2009) | Florida | Automobile buyers brought action against seller for breach of warranty. Trial court awarded costs and attorney fees to seller under the offer of judgment statute and rule. Buyer appealed. The District Court of Appeal reversed holding that seller’s failure to specify the amount of its proposal attributable to each buyer deprived seller of entitlement to attorney fees. |
| Cerasani v. American Honda Motor Co ., 916 So.2d 843, 2005-2 Trade Cases P 74, 952, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D 1902 (App.Fla, 2 Dist., Aug. 10, 2005) | Florida | Lessee of new automobile brought action against manufacturer for breach of written warranty and implied warranties under Magnuson-Moss Act. Trial court dismissed lessee’s complaint with prejudice and lessee appealed. The District Court of Appeal reversed trial court’s order dismissing breach of written warranty claim. |
| Dufresne v. DaimlerChrysler Corp ., 975 So.2d 555, 33 Fla. L. Weekly D455 (Fla.App. 2 Dist., Feb. 8, 2008) | Florida | Consumer brought action against automobile manufacturer under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, seeking damages for breach of warranty. After consumer accepted manufacturer’s settlement offer, consumer sought attorney’s fees and costs under MMWA. Trial court denied consumer’s request for fees and costs and consumer appealed. The District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision and held that settlement agreement entered into between parties did not preclude consumer from being considered a “prevailing party” under MMWA, as would allow him to seek entitlement to attorney’s fees under that statute. |
| Esmurdoc v. DaimlerChrysler Corp ., 2004 WL 2347566, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D2343, (Fla. App. 3 Dist., Oct. 20, 2004) | Florida | Car buyer brought breach of warranty action against manufacturer. The trial court issued an order staying the suit and referring it to arbitration and buyer appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed holding that manufacturer was not a party to the contract containing the arbitration clause nor a third-party beneficiary of the arbitration clause. |
| Medina v. Ford Motor Co., 40 So.3d 891, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D1644 (Ju. 23, 2010) | Florida | Automobile buyer brought action against manufacturer under the Lemon Law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. After entry of a jury verdict in favor of buyer, the trial court granted manufacturer’s motion to set aside the verdict and buyer appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the order setting aside the jury verdict and remanded to the trial court to reinstate judgment in favor of buyer under the Florida Lemon Law. |
| Mesa v. BMW of North America, LLC,904 So.2d 450, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D1132, (Fla.App. 3 Dist., Jun. 22, 2005) | Florida | Lessee of car brought action against manufacturer alleging breach of written warranty pursuant Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of implied warranty, and revocation of acceptance pursuant to MMWA. The trial court granted manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment and lessee appealed. The District Court of Appeal reversed in part holding that lessee was a consumer under MMWA and entitled to sue the automobile manufacturer for breach of express warranty. |
| O’Connor v. BMW of North America, LLC, 905 So.2d 235, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D 1547, (App.Fla. 2 Dist., Jun. 22, 2005) | Florida | Lessee of new car brought action against manufacturer for alleged breach of written warranty under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The trial court granted summary judgment to manufacturer and lessee appealed. The District Court of Appeal reversed finding that lessee qualified as a “consumer” under MMWA. |
| Rentas v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 936 So.2d 747, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D2222 (Fla.App. 4 Dist., Aug. 23, 2006) | Florida | Car buyers brought action against car manufacturer for breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and under state commercial code. The trial court granted manufacturer’s motion to dismiss and buyer appealed. The District Court of Appeal reversed holding that replaced the highlighted with – the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act provided an independent cause of action for a breach of warranty. |
| San Martin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 983 So.2d 620, 33 Fla. L. Weekly D1152 (Fla.App. 3 Dist., Apr. 23, 2008) | Florida | In separate actions, two consumers brought actions against automobile manufacturer for damages under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. After accepting offers of judgment, each consumer sought award of attorney fees under the Act. The trial court denied consumers’ motions for fees and consumers appealed and cases were consolidated. The District Court of Appeal reversed holding that consumers were prevailing parties under the fee-shifting provision of the Act and could proceed to have trial court determine whether they were deserving of an award of attorney fees. |
| Sandin v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., 2009 WL 2500408 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2009) | Florida | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector made an offer of judgment in the amount of $1,001 to each consumer, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to be determined by the court and consumer accepted and filed a petition for attorneys’ fees and costs. The trial court granted the motion in the amount of $4,096.20 in attorneys’ fees and $350.00 in costs. |
| Taylor v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.,934 So.2d 518, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D2560 (Fla.App. 3 Dist., Nov. 9, 2005) | Florida | Car buyer brought breach of warranty action against automobile company and trial court entered directed verdict in favor of automobile company. Buyer appealed an order striking the testimony of consumer’s witnesses and the granting of a directed verdict in favor of automobile company. The District Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in striking consumer’s witnesses as a sanction and so the directed verdict which followed as a consequence of consumer’s inability to put on her case is reversed. |
| Marrale v. Gwinnett Place Ford, 609 S.E.2d 659, 271 Ga.App. 303 (Ga.App., Jan. 20, 2005) | Georgia | Buyer brought action against dealership, claiming fraud and violation of the Fair Business Practices Act arising from his purchase of a used automobile. The trial court granted dealership’s summary judgment motion and buyer appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment on buyer’s Fair Business Practices Act claim finding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether salesman’s misrepresentation about car’s accident-free condition constituted fraud. |
| Knight v. American Suzuki Motor Corp ., 612 S.E.2d 546, 272 Ga.App. 319, 56 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 840, 05 FCDR 962, (Ga.App., Mar. 21, 2005) | Georgia | Vehicle purchaser brought suit against vehicle manufacturer, alleging breach of written and implied warranties. The trial court granted manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment and purchaser appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed holding that the trial court was precluded from granting summary judgment to vehicle manufacturer on claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability. |
| McDonald v. Mazda Motors of America, Inc ., 269 Ga.App. 62, 603 S.E.2d 456, 54 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 579, 4FCDR 2697 (Ga.App., Aug. 10, 2004) | Georgia | Car buyer brought breach of warranty action against car manufacturer for unreasonable delay in making or attempting to make repairs. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of car manufacturer and car buyer appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed holding that material facts existed as to whether car manufacturer failed to make repairs or refused to make repairs, whether inability for months to repair car was indication of manufacturing defect or design defect, and whether or not there was latent defect which buyer could not discover. |
| Paige v. Hyndai Motor America, Inc.,609 S.E.2d 168, 271 Ga.App. 214 (Ga.App., Jan. 6, 2005) | Georgia | Car buyers brought action against auto manufacturer alleging breach of written warranty under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of auto manufacturer and car buyers appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether car buyers failed to complete required arbitration in good faith. |
| Rodgers v. General Motors Corp.,627 S.E.2d 151, 277 Ga.App. 547 (Ga.App., Feb. 9, 2006) | Georgia | Buyer of new car brought action against car manufacturer for alleged breach of implied warranties. The trial court granted summary judgment to manufacturer and buyer appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed holding that buyer’s use of alternative dispute resolution procedures found in lemon law did not result in buyer’s waiver of his right to pursue breach of warranty claims against manufacturer in court. |
| Bartow v. Ford Motor Co.,342 Ill.App.3d 480, 794 N.E.2d 1027, 276 Ill.Dec. 777, 2003-2 Trade Cases P 74, 113, 51 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 722, (Ill.App. 1 Dist., Jul. 31, 2003) | Illinois | Automobile buyer brought action under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act against manufacturer to recover damages for alleged breaches of written and implied warranties. The trial court denied manufacturer’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing, and manufacturer filed application for permissive interlocutory appeal. Upon grant of application, the Appellate Court affirmed, holding that fact that buyer traded in vehicle did not deprive her of her status as consumer under Magnuson-Moss Act; buyer was allowed to recover only for portion of time during which she was entitled to enforce the warranty; and Magnuson-Moss Act did not govern breach of limited warranty. |
| ates v. William Cheverolet/Geo, Inc.,785 N.E.2d 53, 337 Ill.App.3d 151, 271 Ill.Dec. 402 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., Jan. 17, 2003) | Illinois | Used car buyer brought claims against car dealership for common-law fraud and violation of Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act arising from alleged fraudulent representations made by dealership employee made to buyer regarding her financing for the car. The trial court entered judgment upon jury verdict for buyer on common-law fraud count, in amount of $1,060 in compensatory damages and $7,500 in punitive damages. Following submission of written memoranda to the Court on Consumer Fraud Act claim, the Court found in favor of buyer and awarded her $1,060 in compensatory damages and $17,500 in attorney fees. Dealership appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed holding that evidence supported verdict for buyer on her claim for common-law fraud against dealership; evidence supported finding that dealership acted willfully, indicating wanton disregard of buyer’s rights, such as was necessary to support punitive damages award with respect to buyer’s common law fraud claim; dealership violated Consumer Fraud Act when, after rejecting buyer’s credit application, it failed to return her down payment; and dealership’s attempts to refund buyer’s down payment did not render buyer’s claim against dealership for violation of Consumer Fraud Act moot. |
| Brentine v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 826 N.E.2d 1057, 356 Ill.App.3d 760, 292 Ill.Dec. 621 (App.Ill. 1 Dist., Mar. 31, 2005) | Illinois | Automobile purchasers brought separate breach of warranty actions against automobile manufacturer. After actions were dismissed pursuant to settlements, trial court granted purchasers’ motions for turnover of settlement funds and, subsequently, denied manufacturer’s emergency motions to vacate dismissal orders. Manufacturer appealed and appellate court denied appeal. |
| Check v. Clifford Chrysler-Plymouth of Buffalo Grove, Inc.,749 N.E.2d 829, 342 Ill.App.3d 150, 276 Ill.Dec. 579 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., June 13, 2003). | Illinois | Vehicle buyer brought violation of Motor Vehicle Franchise Act, fraud, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act actions against automobile dealer. Trial court entered judgment for buyer on Deceptive Business Practices claim and awarded punitive damages and dealer appealed. Appellate Court affirmed trial court’s judgment for buyer on implied warranty of merchantability claim, deceptive business practices claim and affirmed trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to buyer. |
| Craine v. Bill Kay’s Downers Grove Nissan, 822 N.E.2d 941, 354 Ill.App.3d 1023, 291 Ill.Dec. 66 (Ill.App. 2 Dist., Apr. 16, 2009) | Illinois | Buyer brought action against automobile dealership for alleged violations of Magnuson-Moss Act. The trial court denied dealership’s motion to compel arbitration and summarily denied its motion for reconsideration. The dealership appealed and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal holding that the trial court’s order denying motion to reconsider did not effectively deny an injunction. |
| Dekelaita v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A.,343 Ill.App.3d 801, 799 N.E.2d 367, 278 Ill.Dec. 649, (Ill.App. 1 Dist., Sept. 29, 2003) | Illinois | Lessees of automobile sued manufacturer under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act for breach of written warranty and breach of implied warranty, and sought to revoke acceptance. Trial court dismissed the action and lessees appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed finding that the trial court erred in dismissing lessees suit because they were lessees rather than purchasers. |
| Hanson-Suminski v. Rohrman Midwest Motors, Inc., dba Arlington Acura in Palatine, | Illinois | 898 N.E.2d 194, 386 Ill.App. 585, 325 Ill.Dec. 461 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., Nov. 7, 2008). Car buyer brought common-law fraud and Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act action against car dealership. The district court entered judgment on jury verdict for buyer on the common law fraud claim, and, after a bench trial, a judgment for buyer on the Consumer Fraud Act claim. Dealership appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed trial court’s judgment for consumer on common law fraud and Consumer Fraud Act claims. |
| Hart v. Boehmer Chevrolet Sales, Inc.,787 N.E.2d 350, 337 Ill.App.3d 742, 272 Ill.Dec. 535 (Ill.App. 2 Dist., Apr. 3, 2003) | Illinois | Buyer of truck sued dealer for violation of Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices and common-law fraud, alleging that vehicle was damaged before sale. Trial court granted summary judgment for dealer and buyer appealed. The Appellate Court reversed holding that genuine issues of fact existed precluding summary judgment on common-law fraud and Consumer Fraud Act claims. |
| Jones v. Nissan North America, Inc., 895 N.E.2d 303, 385 Ill.App.3d 740, 324 Ill.Dec. 140 (Ill.App., Sept. 11, 2008) | Illinois | Automobile buyer whose original claim under an informal dispute resolution process established by automobile manufacturer was dismissed for failure to present the vehicle for inspection brought action against manufacturer for breach of express and implied warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. After automobile was repossessed, buyer amended complaint to assert claim against financing company. The trial court granted manufacturer’s motion to dismiss without prejudice for failure to use the dispute resolution process. After buyer’s second claim under the process was dismissed because buyer no longer possessed the automobile, the trial court denied buyer’s motion to reinstate the complaint and buyer appealed. The Appellate Court reversed holding that buyer’s ineligibility to participate in the dispute resolution process did not deprive buyer of his right to file suit under MMWA. |
| Jones v. William Buick, Inc.337 Ill.App.3d 339, 785 N.E.2d 910, 271 Ill.Dec. 716, (Ill.App. 1 Dist., Feb. 03, 2003) | Illinois | Credit applicant, whose application for car loan was rejected, brought action under Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act alleging that dealer’s failure to promptly return down payment constituted fraud. The trial court granted summary judgment for car dealer, and applicant appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed holding that an issue of fact existed as to whether car dealer had practice of attempting to withhold down payments of its rejected credit applicants. |
| Nowalski v. Ford Motor Company,781 N.E.2d 578, 335 Ill.App3d 625, 269 Ill.Dec. 781 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., Nov. 27, 2002) | Illinois | Buyers of motor vehicle filed complaint against vehicle manufacturer, alleging causes of action under Magnuson-Moss Act for breach of express “repair or replace” warranty. Manufacturer moved for summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds and the trial court granted the motion. Buyers appealed and the Appellate Court affirmed. However, decision was overruled by Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 875 N.E.2d 1047, 226 Ill.2d 307, 314 Ill.Dec. 760 (Ill. S.Ct., Sept. 20, 2007). |
| Pearson v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,349 Ill.App.3d 688, 813 N.E.2d 230, 286 Ill.Dec. 173, 2004-1 Trade Cases P 74, 366, 53 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 18, (Ill.App. 1 Dist., Mar. 31, 2004) | Illinois | Car owner and car lessee brought separate suits against automobile manufacturer alleging breach of warranty. In owner’s action, the trial court entered judgment on jury’s verdict for manufacturer. In lessee’s action, the trial court entered summary judgment for defendant. Owner and lessee appealed. The Appellate Court reversed holding that jury instruction was defective, lessee was a “consumer” with standing to bring suit and genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether repairs were made within reasonable time or within reasonable number of attempts and whether vehicle was in safe condition and substantially free of defects. |
| Mangold v. Nissan North America, Inc.,809 N.E.2d 251, 347 Ill.App.3d 1008, 284 Ill.Dec. 129 (Ill.App. 3 Dist., Apr. 30, 2004) | Illinois | Car lessees brought breach of warranty action against car manufacturer under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The trial court denied manufacturer’s motion to dismiss and granted manufacturer’s petition for interlocutory review. The Appellate Court found that lessees qualified as “consumers” under second and third prong of MMWA and warranty issued to financial services company that purchased car and leased it to lessees was made in connection with a “sale” to which MMWA applied. . |
| Mekertichian v. Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., LLC, 347 Ill.App.3d 828, 807 N.E.2d 1165, 283 Ill.Dec. 324 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., Mar. 31, 2004) | Illinois | Consumer brought action against vehicle’s manufacturer for breach of written and implied warranties under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Manufacturer filed motion for partial summary judgment as to claim for breach of implied warranties. The trial court denied motion but certified question to Supreme Court. Manufacturer filed application for leave to appeal which Appellate Court denied. Following supervisory order from Supreme Court, Appellate Court vacated order denying leave to appeal. Upon appeal the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court holding that vertical privity between consumer and manufacturer did not preclude claim under MMWA for breach of implied warranties. |
| Melton v. Frigidaire, 346 Ill.App.3d 331, 805 N.E.2d 322, 281 Ill.Dec. 954, (Ill.App. 1 Dist., Feb. 24, 2004) | Illinois | Consumer who entered into settlement agreement with refrigerator manufacturer sought attorney fees as the prevailing party. The trial court awarded attorney fees and costs and manufacturer appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed holding that consumer was a “prevailing party” for purposes of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and thus was entitled to attorney fees. |
| Miller v. William Cheverolet/GEO, Inc.,326 Ill.App.3d 642, 762 N.E.2d 1, 260 Ill.Dec. 735, (Ill.App. 1 Dist., Sept. 28, 2001) | Illinois | Buyer of used automobile sued dealership for common law fraud and alleged violations of consumer protection statute. The trial court granted summary judgment to dealership and buyer appealed. The Appellate Court reversed in part holding that issues of fact existed precluding summary judgment relating to salesperson’s alleged statement to buyer that car was “executive driven” and fact issues existed as to whether dealership knew of automobile’s prior history as rental vehicle, whether that prior history was material fact that dealership was required to disclose, and whether dealership intended that buyer rely on suppression of that prior history in deciding whether to buy car precluding summary judgment on fraudulent concealment claim under consumer fraud statute. |
| Mrugala v. Fairfield Ford, Inc.,325 Ill.App.3d 484, 758 N.E.2d 423, 259 Ill.Dec. 300, (Ill.App. 1 Dist., Sept. 28, 2001) | Illinois | Vehicle buyer brought action against automobile dealer for breach of written warranty, breach of implied warranty, and revocation of acceptance. In a mandatory arbitration proceeding, buyer was awarded damages, but the award was silent as to revocation. Dealer petitioned for relief from judgment. The trial court found there was revocation of acceptance, and ordered buyer to sign title over to dealer and buyer appealed. The Appellate Court reversed finding that dealer’s notice of petition for relief from judgment was insufficient, trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider it, and trial court lacked authority to modify the award. |
| Razor v. Hyundai Motor America, 349 Ill.App.3d 651, 813 N.E.2d 247, 286 Ill.Dec. 190, 54 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 737, (Ill.App. 1 Dist., Jun. 16, 2004) | Illinois | Car buyer brought breach of warranty action against car manufacturer. The district court entered a judgment on a jury verdict for buyer, and manufacturer appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed holding evidence raised fact issue for the jury as to whether buyer was entitled to damages for the difference in value between car as warranted and car as delivered, and to damages for loss of use, aggravation and inconvenience; buyer had a cause of action for breach of implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Act against manufacturer, as manufacturer had provided buyer with a written limited warranty; evidence raised fact issue for the jury as to whether manufacturer breached its limited warranty to repair and replace defective part; evidence raised fact issue for the jury as to whether car was unmerchantable; evidence raised fact issue for the jury as to whether the defect existed when car left manufacturer’s possession and control; and evidence raised fact issue for the jury as to whether manufacturer’s limited warranty failed of its essential purpose and manufacturer’s exclusion of incidental and consequential damages under the same contract would not be enforced. |
| Shoop v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,864 N.E.2d 785, 271 Ill.App.3d 1058, 309 Ill.Dec. 544 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., Mar. 29, 2007) | Illinois | Consumer sued car manufacturer alleging breach of express and implied warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Act due to numerous repairs required on his vehicle. Manufacturer moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion and consumer appealed. The Appellate Court reversed holding that issues of fact existed as to consumer’s damages and as to whether vehicle was free from defects. |
| Stone v. Clifford Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.,775 N.E.2d 92, 333 Ill.App.3d 363, 266 Ill.Dec. 530 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., Aug 02, 2002) | Illinois | Lessee of automobile brought action asserting claims of common law fraud and statutory consumer fraud against lessor, alleging that lessor misrepresented that vehicle was new and failed to inform lessee that vehicle had been in a severe accident. The trial court granted lessor’s motion for summary judgment and lessee appealed. The Appellate court reversed finding genuine issues of material fact as to cost of repair and whether lessor had actual knowledge of damage to vehicle. |
| Vassilkovska v. Woodfield Nissan, Inc.,830 N.E.2d 619, 358 Ill.App.3d 20, 294 Ill.Dec. 207 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., May 24, 2005) | Illinois | Buyer of used car brought action against dealership for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, common-law fraud, violation of the Truth-in-Lending Act, and violation of the Credit Services Organizations Act. Trial court denied dealership’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Dealership appealed and the Appellate Court affirmed holding that arbitration agreement between dealership and buyer was a document separate and apart from the purchase contract, thus requiring its own consideration, and arbitration agreement was not supported by consideration. |
| Willis v. NAICO Real Estate Property and Management Co.,379 Ill.App.3d 486, 884 N.E.2d 752 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., Feb. 19, 2008) | Illinois | Residential tenant brought action against landlord, seeking return of security deposit and interest. After landlord filed counterclaim for breach of the lease and sought attorney’s fees, tenant filed amended complaint alleging that landlord’s counterclaim attempted to enforce an illegal lease provision to obtain attorney fees. The trial court granted landlord’s motion to dismiss tenant’s claim regarding landlord’s counterclaim and, following a jury trial, entered judgment for tenant and for landlord on their claims and awarded attorney’s fees to each party. Tenant appealed. The Appellate Court reversed holding that lease provision allowing landlord to obtain attorney’s fees was illegal under city ordinance. |
| Zietara v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,838 N.E.2d 76, 361 Ill.App.3d 819, 297 Ill.Dec. 589 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., Oct. 19, 2005) | Illinois | Automobile buyer brought breach of warranty action against automobile manufacturer pursuant to Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. After an award was entered in manufacturer’s favor following binding arbitration, buyer filed a notice of rejection of the arbitration award. The trial court barred buyer from rejecting the award and the buyer appealed. The Appellate court reversed holding that buyer’s conduct did not result in waiver of right to reject arbitration or waiver of right to reject the award. |
| Daimler Chrysler Corporation v. Franklin,814 N.E.2d 281 (Indiana Ct. of Appeals Aug. 30, 2004) | Indiana | Car buyer brought action against manufacturer for breach of written warranties, breach of warranty of merchantability, revocation of acceptance, and a violation of the Indiana Motor Vehicle Protection Act. Manufacturer filed motion to dismiss and for an order to compel arbitration pursuant to contract between buyer and dealership. Trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and following jury trial, entered judgment for buyer and awarded attorney’s fees. Manufacturer appealed and buyer cross-appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny manufacturer’s motion to compel arbitration and affirmed the trial court’s decision to award buyer attorneys’ fees. |
| Edwards v. Hyundai Motor America,63 S.W.3d 494, 2005-1 Trade Cases P 74, 778 (Miss.App. East. Dist., May 3, 2005) | Missouri | Purchasers of new automobile brought action against automobile dealer under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act for breach of written warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and revocation and acceptance. Dealer moved to dismiss as untimely under Missouri Lemon Law. The trial court dismissed purchasers’ claims and purchasers appealed. The District Court of Appeal reversed finding that the trial court erred in dismissing purchasers’ claims for breach of written warranty and breach of implied warranty. |
| Deeter v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 2005 WL 940902, 2005 Ohio 1931 (Ohio.App. 2 Dist., Apr. 22, 2005) | Ohio | Buyer of motorcycle brought action against manufacturer under lemon law. The Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment in favor of buyer and manufacturer appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment against manufacturer. |
| McGuire v. American Suzuki Motor Corp., 2004 WL 2913952, No. 03-CO-40, 2004 Ohio 6799 (Ohio.App. 7 Dist., Dec. 9, 2004) | Ohio | Off-road motorcycle owner brought action against motorcycle manufacturer alleging breach of written and implied warranties in violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and violation of lemon law. The jury entered verdict for owner and manufacturer’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was granted. Owner appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the jury verdict holding that pursuant to lemon law owner established that motorcycle did not conform to applicable express warranty that it would be free from defect in materials and factory workmanship. In addition, owner established that manufacturer breach implied warranty of merchantability and breach of written warranty. |
| Neeld v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc.,2004 WL 2715919, No. 04AP-75 (Ohio.App. 10 Dist., Nov. 30, 2004) | Ohio | Automobile lessee brought action against manufacturer alleging violation of motor vehicle lemon law. After denying manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court entered judgment on jury verdict in favor of lessee, and manufacturer appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed holding that manufacturer’s appeal was moot and evidence of non-conformity and impaired value of vehicle was sufficient to sustain verdict in favor of lessee. |
| Yantek v. Coach Builders Limited, Inc.,2007 WL 2812337, No. C-060601, (Ohio Ct. of Appeals, 1st Dist. Sept. 28, 2007) | Ohio | Manufacturer-appellant appealed from the trial court’s entry in favor of purchaser-appellee on his claims for breach of warranty and attorney fees against manufacturer. Purchaser claimed that manufacturer had failed to repair defects arising from its installation of a convertible roof on his vehicle. On appeal manufacturer challenged legal and factual issues addressed before a magistrate. But because the trial court failed to adopt or modify the magistrate’s decision, the entry of judgment was not a final order and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. |
| Mayberry v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.,678 N.W.2d 357, 271 Wis.2d 258, 2004-1 Trade Cases P 74, 304, 52 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 912, 2004 WI App 64 (Wis.App., Feb. 24, 2004) | Wisconsin | Vehicle buyer brought claims against manufacturer under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, for breach of written warranty and breach of implied warranty of merchantability, but after filing the complaint, buyer traded-in the vehicle. The trial court granted summary judgment to manufacturer and buyer appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed holding that the allegation that buyer had traded-in the vehicle for more than its fair market value did not preclude buyer from establishing damages. |
| Peterson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.,679 N.W.2d 840, 272 Wis.2d 676, 2004 WI App 76, (Wis.App., Mar. 31, 2004) | Wisconsin | Automobile lessee brought action against manufacturer under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act alleging breach of written warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and revocation of acceptance of automobile. The trial court granted manufacturer’s motion to dismiss and lessee appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed holding that automobile lessee qualified as a “consumer” who was entitled to enforce written warranty under MMWA. |
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS
| Case and Cite | Jurisdiction | Summary |
| Bray v. Monaco Coach Corp.,371 F.Supp.2d 1135 (D. Ariz. Apr. 27, 2005) | Arizona | Buyer brought action against manufacturer of motor home under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Manufacturer filed motion for summary judgment and the trial court denied the motion holding that a genuine issue of fact existed as to whether buyer provided manufacturer a “reasonable opportunity” to cure defects in motor home. |
| De Shazer v. National RV Holdings, Inc. and Freightliner Custom Chassis Corp.,391 F.Supp.2d 791 (D. Ariz. July 25, 2005) | Arizona | Buyer brought action under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act against final stage manufacturer of recreational vehicles (RV) and RV chassis manufacturer alleging breach of warranties. Manufacturers moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied manufacturer’s motion holding that issues of fact existed as to whether alleged defects had been repaired or withdrawn by buyer. |
| Haugland v. Winnebago Industries, et al.,327 F.Supp.2d 1092, 54 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 853 (D.Ariz. July 8, 2004) | Arizona | Buyer of motor home brought Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) action against manufacturer of motor home, manufacturer of chassis in motor home, and manufacturer of water heater in motor home for allegedly defective motor home. Defendants, Workhorse and Atwood, filed a motion to dismiss buyer’s breach of express limited warranty claims and the trial court denied same holding that buyer’s complaint could be construed to contain claims under the MMWA and Arizona state law. |
| Hillery v. Georgie Boy Mfg., Inc.,341 F.Supp.2d 1112, 55 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 151 (D. Ariz. Oct. 26, 2004) | Arizona | Buyer of mobile home brought action against manufacturer alleging breach of express warranty claim under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and manufacturer moved to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds. The trial court denied the motion holding that Arizona UCC’s four-year statute of limitations for breach of warranty claims governed the action. |
| Lams v. Accounts Receivable Management, Inc.,2010 WL 3283517, No. CV-09-0892-PHX-LOA (D. Ariz. Aug. 17, 2010) | Arizona | Consumer brought action against debt collector for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Subsequently, consumer moved for an in limine order that debt collection company, its witnesses, and attorneys shall not mention within the hearing of the jury, including jury instructions, the availability of an award of attorneys’ fees should consumer prevail in the litigation. The trial court granted consumer’s motion. |
| Muller v. Winnebago Industries, Inc.,318 F.Supp.2d 844 (D. Ariz. May 14, 2004) | Arizona | Owner of motor home sued manufacturer, and supplier of chassis, alleging violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA). Chassis supplier moved for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion holding that MMWA amount in controversy was satisfied and exhaustion of information dispute resolution of chassis manufacturer was not required prior to suit. |
| Plagens, et al. v. National RV Holdings, Inc.,et. al., 2005 WL 1353936, No. CV-02-1393-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Jun. 6, 2005) | Arizona | Consumers filed an action pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) alleging breach of express and implied warranties and seeking revocation of acceptance. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all claims and Defendant sought attorneys’ fees pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-341.01(A). The trial court denied Defendant’s motion for fees holding A.R.S. § in applicable since the MMWA creates a federal private cause of action in favor of consumers. |
| Savage v. NIC, Inc.,2009 WL 2259726, No. CV-08-1780-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Jul. 28, 2009) | Arizona | Consumers brought an action against debt collection agency alleging various violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and debt collector moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied debt collector’s motion as to consumers’ 1692d(2), 1692e(4) and 1692e(5) claims, awarded summary judgment to consumers’ on their 1692d(6) and 1692e(11) claims and ordered case to trial on issue of damages. |
| Savage v. NIC, Inc.,2010 WL 2347028, No. 2:08-cv-01780-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Jun. 9, 2010) | Arizona | Consumers filed an action seeking damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the parties settled out of court. Pursuant to the parties agreement consumers petitioned the court for an award of attorneys’ fees. The trial court granted consumers’ motion in the amount of $17,442.30. |
| Traynor v. Winnebago Industries, Inc. & Workhorse Custom Chassis, Inc.,2006 WL 778703, No. 03-2082-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2006) | Arizona | Buyer of motor home brought action against manufacturers. Manufacturer, Workhorse, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and a motion to reconsider order denying its motion in limine with respect to incidental and consequential damages. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss holding that buyer’s subsequent sale of the motor home did not destroy subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court affirmed denial of the motion in limine holding that it could not conclude as a matter of law that the damages limitation provision is enforceable. |
| Traynor v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., et. al, 422 F.Supp.2d 1100 (D. Ariz. Mar. 26, 2006) | Arizona | Buyer brought action under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and prevailing Defendant applied for an award of attorneys’ fees under Arizona law. The trial court denied the motion holding that Arizona statute providing for awards of attorney fees in cases “arising out of contract” did not apply. |
| Traynor v. Winnebago Industries, Inc. & Workhorse Custom Chassis, Inc.,2004 WL 1146077, No. 03-2082-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. May 19, 2004) | Arizona | Buyer of a motor home brought action against manufacturers for breach of written warranties in violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and manufacturer, Winnebago, filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion holding that buyer’s allegations that he provided Winnebago with sufficient opportunities to repair the defects and despite being given more than a reasonable number of attempts were sufficient to withstand the motion. |
| Traynor v. Workhorse Custom Chassis, Inc., 2006 WL 1080690, No. CV-03-2082-PHX-DGC, 70 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 42 (D. Ariz. Apr. 24, 2006) | Arizona | Buyer of a motor home brought action under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Defendant filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law along with a motion to exclude the valuation opinions of buyer’s expert. The trial court denied the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law holding that buyer’s opinions as to value of motor home was properly admitted into evidence from which the jury could calculate his damages. Additionally, the trial court denied Defendant’s motion to exclude valuation opinions of buyer’s expert as untimely. |
| Weible v. Jerold Kaplan Law Office, 2010 WL 325738, No. CV-09-1981-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz. Jan. 26, 2010) | Arizona | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Debt collector served consumer with offer of judgment in the amount of $1,001.00 in damages and reasonable costs and reasonable attorney’s fees now accrued. Consumer accepted the offer and filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs with the court. The trial court entered judgment in favor of consumer and against debt collector for $1,001.00 in damages, $850.00 in attorney fees, and taxable costs. |
| Zavlunov v. Bursey & Associates, P.C.,2009 WL 4730645, No. CV-09-0351-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. Dec. 3, 2009) | Arizona | Consumer brought action against debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and debt collector sought to join consumer’s mother. The trial court denied the motion holding that consumer’s mother did not assert a right to join under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 and debt collector has not right to insist that consumer join all parties who may satisfy same. |
| Allen v. States Recovery Systems, Inc.,2009 WL 3763987, No. S-09-0877-GGH (E.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2009) | California | Consumer brought action against debt collector for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California’s Rosenthal Act. Consumer filed a motion for extension of time to respond to request for admissions and debt collector filed a response and request for sanctions. The trial court granted consumer’s motion for extension holding that debt collector failed to show prejudice. The trial court denied debt collector’s sanctions motion holding that counsel’s inadvertent calendaring error does not warrant sanctions. |
| Anderson v. Asset Acceptance, LLC,2010 WL 1752609, No. CV-09-2970-MEJ (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2010) | California | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Consumer filed a motion to dismiss and debt collector opposed the motion and filed its own motion for sanctions seeking attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1927 and the inherent power of the court. The trial court granted consumer’s motion to dismiss and denied debt collector’s motion for fees holding that the consumer did not bring the case and subsequently seek to dismiss in an unreasonable or vexatious manner warranting fees. The trial court also held that the action was not filed in bad faith and there was no conduct tantamount to bad faith justifying debt collector’s fees. |
| Brown v. Phillips, Everett & Jones, LLC,2010 WL 2555642, No. CV-09-9274-PSG-DTB (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2010) | California | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector failed to file an answer to consumer’s complaint and consumer sought default judgment. Trial court granted consumer’s motion for default and awarded $2,000 in statutory damages and $2,054.90 in attorneys’ fees, and $361.61 in costs. |
| Cabrera v. Bay Area Credit Services,2009 WL 1636916, No. CV-08-03761-JW (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2009) | California | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The parties reached a settlement agreement and pursuant to same consumer petitioned trial court for fees and costs. The trial court granted consumer’s request for fees in the amount of $4,569.00. |
| Dabu v. Becks Creek Industry,2009 WL 5178263, No. C-08-05626-JSW (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2009) | California | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector failed to file an answer to consumer’s complaint and consumer sought default judgment. Trial court granted consumer’s motion for default and awarded $2,000.00 in statutory damages, $3,350.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs. |
| Dudek v. Law Office of Scott Carruthers, 2009 WL 4981165, No. C-09-1591-EMC (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2009) | California | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California’s Rosenthal Act. The parties settled and agreed to submit the issue of consumer’s attorneys’ fees to the court. The trial court granted consumer’s request for fees and costs in the amount of $4,000. |
| Estrella v. GL Recovery Group, LLC,2010 WL 679067, No. SACV-09-1433-AG-RNB (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2010) | California | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion holding that consumer alleged sufficient facts for a single violation to overcome debt collector’s motion as to consumer’s claims. |
| Jamal v. Thompson & Associates, P.C.,2010 WL 678925, No. C-09-04249-MHP-BZ (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2010) | California | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector failed to file an answer to consumer’s complaint and consumer sought default judgment. Trial court granted consumer’s motion for default in the amount of $600.00 in statutory damage with post-judgment interest at rate of 039%, costs of $350.00 and $2,106.50 in attorneys’ and paralegal fees. |
| Jones v. Morgan Stone Associates, 2009 WL 5218423, No. C09-3172-JSW-JL (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2009) | California | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector failed to file an answer to consumer’s complaint and consumer sought default judgment. Trial court granted consumer’s motion for default judgment in the amount of $2,000.00 in statutory damages, $2,312.40 in attorneys’ fees, $745.00 in costs, $350.00 in filing fees, $395.00 for service and $750.00 in anticipated collection costs. |
| Jones v. Morgan Stone Associates,2010 WL 55884, No. c-09-03172-JSW (N.D. Cal.,Jan. 4, 2010) | California | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector failed to file an answer to consumer’s complaint and consumer sought default judgment. Trial court granted consumer’s motion for default and awarded $2,000 in statutory damages, $2,312.40 in attorneys’ fees and $745.00 in costs. |
| Krapf v. Nationwide Credit, Inc.,2010 WL 2025323, No. SACV-09-00711-JVS-MLG (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2010) | California | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector moved for summary judgment and sought attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) on grounds that the action was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment. The trial court denied the motion as to §§ 1692d(5), 1788.11(d), 1788.17 claims. The trial court denied the motion for attorneys’ fees holding that bad faith is not found where consumer has a meritorious claim. |
| Krapf v. Nationwide Credit, Inc.,2010 WL 4261444, No. SACV-09-00711-JVS-MLG (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2010) | California | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The parties reached a settlement agreement and pursuant to same consumer petitioned trial court for fees and costs. The trial court granted consumer’s request for fees in the amount of $26,120.40. |
| Langdon v. Credit Management, LP aka the CMI Group,2010 WL 3341860, No. C-09-3286-VRW (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2010) | California | Consumer brought an action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California’s Rosenthal Act and debt collector moved to dismiss, strike or for a more definitive statement. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss holding that consumer’s factual assertions were sufficient to connect the legal theories with the alleged conduct. The trial court denied the motion to strike holding that the allegations along with the stated claims do not contain any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matters. Finally, the trial court denied the motion for a more definite statement holding that consumer’s complaint provides sufficient details to reasonably understand the nature of consumer’s claims. |
| McKibben v. Collection Professional Services aka Nationwide Capital Recovery,2010 WL 2025319, No. 2:09-cv-02949-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal.,May 18, 2010) | California | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector failed to file an answer to consumer’s complaint and consumer sought default judgment. Trial court granted consumer’s motion for default judgment in the amount of $800.00 in statutory damages, $361.61 in costs, and $1,664.50 in attorneys’ fees. |
| Middlesworth v. Oaktree Collections, Inc.,2009 WL 3720884, No. 1:09-cv-601-OOW-BAK (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2009) | California | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector failed to file an answer to consumer’s complaint and consumer sought default judgment. Trial court granted consumer’s motion for default and awarded $1,000.00 in statutory damages, $3,114.90 in attorneys’ fees and $485.68 in costs. |
| Mostin v. GL Recovery, LLC,2010 WL 668808, No. SACV-09-0650-AG-AN (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2010) | California | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector sought to join its state law counterclaim and consumer filed an ex parte application to dismiss. The trial court granted dismissal declining to exercise jurisdiction holding that whether or not consumer actually owes the debt is irrelevant to consumer’s claims. |
| Rafanan v. Focus Receivables Management, LLC,010 WL 2923284, No. 09-cv-02715-JAM-KJM, (E.D. Cal. July 26, 2010) | California | Consumer brought action against a debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt Collector served consumer with offer of judgment and consumer petitioned the court for fees. The trial court granted fees and costs in the amount of $2,055.00 in fees and $350.00 in costs. |
| Renteria v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., 2009 WL 2754988, No. 09-cv-1195-BTM-JMA (S.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2009) | California | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion holding that consumer alleged sufficient facts to support his claims and debt collector could learn more about the communication details at issue through discovery. |
| Rucker v. Nationwide Credit, Inc.,2011 WL 25300, No. 2:09-cv-2420-GEB-EFB (Jan. 5, 2011) | California | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendant moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion as to consumer’s §§ 1692d and 1692d(5) claims holding that there were genuine issues of material fact whether debt collector’s telephone calls violated the proscribed conduct. |
| Kunard v. Scott Lowery Law Office, P.C.,2010 WL 4394232, No. 10-cv-00565-RPM-MEH (D. Col. Oct. 28, 2010) | Colorado | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d) for consumer’s failure to appear at her deposition for her FDCPA action. The trial court denied the motion holding that a litigant seeking a sanction for a violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should not themselves breach the same rules in the sanction request. |
| Sowers v. Wakefield & Associates, 2010 WL 3872901, No. 09-cv-02873-BNB-MEH (D. Col. Sept. 29, 2010) | Colorado | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and debt collector moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to consumer’s claims. |
| Andre v. CCB Credit Services, Inc., 2010 WL 3222501, No. 09-21421-CV (S.D. Fla., Aug. 13, 2010) | Florida | Consumer filed an action against a debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The trial court granted summary judgment to debt collector and it filed a motion for attorneys’ fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and 15 U.S.C. § 1692(k). The trial court denied the motion holding that no evidence existed that counsel was aware that the claim was frivolous at the time consumer signed the complaint; the record shows consumer’s attorney relying on information provided by consumer filed a complaint that was dismissed on summary judgment and this standing alone is insufficient to establish bad faith or harassment; voluntary withdrawal of consumer’s claims supports concluding that there was no evidence of multiplying the proceedings, bad faith, or harassment. |
| Kelemen v. Professional Collection Systems,2011 WL 31396, No. 6:09-cv-1639-Orl-28DAB (M.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2011) | Florida | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendant moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion as to consumer’s §§ 1692c(a)(2), 1692c(b), and 1692d holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to consumer’s claims. |
| Martin v. Client Services, Inc.,2010 WL 3702461, No. 2:09-cv-657-FTM-99SPC (M.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2010) | Florida | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Consumer moved to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production. The trial court granted the motion as to Interrogatory Numbers 8 and 9 and Request for Production Number 8. |
| Renninger v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd.,2010 WL 3259417, No. 8:10-cv-5-T-33EAJ (M.D. Fla Aug. 18, 2010) | Florida | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The parties settled pursuant to an offer of judgment agreeing to submit the issue of attorneys’ fees to the court. The trial court granted consumer’s motion for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $2,379.41. |
| Ritchie v. Calvary Portfolio Services, LLC,2010 WL 148718, No. 8:08-CV-1725-T-17EAJ (M.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2010) | Florida | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and debt collector moved for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 since discovery disproved consumer’s claim that he was contacted at an improper time. The trial court denied the motion for sanctions holding that record did not support a finding of sanctions because consumer presented phone records indicating calls from debt collector. |
| Sampson v. Brewer,2010 WL 2432045, No. 6:09-cv-2114-Orl-31DAB (M.D. Fla. June 15, 2010) | Florida | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector failed to respond and consumer moved for a default judgment. The trial court granted default judgment in the amount of $1,000.00 in statutory damages, $2,415.00 in attorneys’ fees, and $411.61 in costs. |
| Selby v. Christian Nicholas & Associates, Inc.,2010 WL 745748, No. 3:09-cv-121-J-34JRK (M.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2010) | Florida | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector failed to response and consumer filed a motion for default judgment. The trial court granted the motion in the amount of $1,000.00 in statutory damages, $2,471.50 in attorneys’ fees, and $350.00 in costs. |
| Stone v. National Enterprise Systems,2009 WL 3336073, No. 6:08-cv-1523-Orl-22GJK (M.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2009) | Florida | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The parties agreed to a bifurcated settlement and consumer filed a petition for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the agreement. The trial court granted the petition in the amount of $7,850.00. |
| Zelyony v. Porsche Cars North America, 2008 WL 1776975, No. 08-20090-CIV (S.D. Fla. Apr. 16, 2008) | Florida | Car buyer brought action against manufacturer for breach of warranty under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and revocation of acceptance. Manufacturer moved to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion holding that consumer alleged enough facts to raise the right to relief about the speculative level. |
| Gilbert v. Monaco Coach Corp.,352 F.Supp.2d 1323 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 9, 2004) | Georgia | Purchasers of recreational vehicle brought action against manufacturer alleging breach of limited warranty under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and manufacturer moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion as to consumers’ claim for consequential and incidental damages. |
| Gilbert v. Monaco Coach Corp.,352 F.Supp.2d 1336 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 12, 2004) | Georgia | Buyers of allegedly defective recreational vehicle brought action against manufacturer for breach of warranty under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Manufacturer moved to exclude proposed testimony of buyers’ expert. The trial court denied manufacturer’s motion holding that Daubert test for admissibility for expert testimony did not apply to proposed testimony of auto mechanic who had evaluated vehicle. |
| Mize v. Winnebago Industries, Inc. and Workhorse Custom Chassis, LLC, 2006 WL 355259, No. 1:05-CV-1513 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 15, 2006) | Georgia | Buyers of motor home brought breach of warranty action under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Winnebago and Workhorse each brought motions for protective orders and motions for summary judgments. Buyers filed a motion to amend the complaint, vacate discovery deadline and stay Winnebago and Workhorse’s motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied Winnebago’s motion for protective order; denied Workhorse’s motion for protective order; granted buyers’ motion to amend; granted buyers; motion to vacate discovery deadline and to stay Winnebago and Workhorse’s motions for summary judgment. |
| Mize v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., 2006 WL 2716089, No. 1:05-CV-1513-GET (N.D. Ga. Sept. 21, 2006) | Georgia | Buyers of motor home brought breach of warranty action under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Buyers filed a motion requesting leave to prepare an amended response to Winnebago’s motion for summary judgment and a motion for leave to file excess pages. The trial court granted the motions. |
| Mize v. Winnebago Industries, Inc., Suncoast RV, Inc., 2007 WL 415170, No. 1:05-CV-1513-GET (N.D. Ga. Feb. 6, 2007) | Georgia | Buyers of motor home brought breach of warranty action under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Buyers amended the complaint to add Suncoast as a party to the lawsuit and Suncoast moved to dismiss and for summary judgment. Buyers filed a motion for extension to respond to the summary judgment motion. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss holding that buyers amended complaint presented sufficient facts to meet the requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 9(b). The trial court further granted buyers’ motion for extension of time to respond to Suncoast’s summary judgment motion. |
| American Sec. Mortg. v. Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc.,1998 WL 70609, No. 97-C-4799 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 1998) | Illinois | Car lessee and finance company brought action against car manufacturer for breach of express and implied warranties of merchantability under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. A jury trial was held and jury awarded plaintiffs damages in the amount of $14,700 for breach of implied warranty and plaintiffs sought attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Act. The trial court granted the petition in the amount of $12,170 in fees and $150 in costs. |
| Azimi v. Ford Motor Company,977 F.Supp. 847 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 1996) | Illinois | Car buyer brought action against manufacturer asserting claims of common law fraud and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Manufacturer moved to dismiss. Trial court denied the motion holding that allegations were sufficient to allege that dealership was agent of manufacturer, and to state common law and statutory fraud claims; fraud was alleged with sufficient particularity; and court could not say to a legal certainty that buyer’s aggregate recovery would not exceed amount in controversy requirement for exercise of diversity jurisdiction. |
| Barker v. Trans Union, LLC,2004 WL 783357, No. 03-C-3837 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 23, 2004) | Illinois | Consumer brought action against credit bureau and credit card company alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Credit card company moved to stay the claim against it based on an arbitration provision that was purportedly part of the agreement for the credit card account. Credit card company also moved to dismiss the common law defamation claim. The trial court denied credit card company’s motion to stay proceedings or dismiss holding that an issue of whether consumer was actually a cardholder for her ex-husband’s account. |
| Bassett v. I.C. System, Inc.,715 F.Supp.2d 803 (N.D. Ill., June 1, 2010) | Illinois | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and debt collector moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion as to consumer’s §1692d(5) claim and denied debt collector’s bona fide error defense holding that because debt collector called consumer thirty-one times over a twelve day period, consumer presented sufficient evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact. |
| Baxter v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., 259 F.R.D. 336 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 1, 2009) | Illinois | Purchaser of a motorcycle brought an action under the Odometer Act against companies which allegedly designed, manufactured, and/or distributed the motorcycle for overstating the mileage. Purchaser filed a motion for class certification and companies field motion to srike. The trial court denied companies’ motion to strike and granted purchaser’s motion for class certification. |
| Baxter v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., 2010 WL 335103, No. 07-C-6745 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 27, 2010) | Illinois | Purchaser of a motorcycle brought an action under the Odometer Act against companies which allegedly designed, manufactured, and/or distributed the motorcycle for overstating the mileage. A Rule 23(b)(3) class was certified consisting of: “All persons and entities who/which purchased or leased a new Kawasaki Vulcan Nomad 1600 or Vulcan Classic 1600 motorcycle, model years 2005 through 2009, anywhere in the United States on or after November 30, 2005 and no later than December 31, 2008. Excluded from the Class are defendants, and their parents, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates.” After considering both sides’ proposals, a form of notice to the class was approved. Defendants moved to delay the sending of the notice until after discovery is completed and a ruling is made on any motion for summary judgment that defendants may bring. The trial court denied the motion holding that companies did not make a substantial showing of prejudice to overcome the presumed procedure of prompt notice. |
| Brown v. Trans Union, LLC, et al.,2005 WL 442204, No. 03-C-5774 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 23, 2005) | Illinois | Consumer brought action against multiple parties claiming violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to conduct reasonable investigation of consumer’s dispute. Debt collection company moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion holding that genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether debt collector, if it received the consumer debt verification form, actually completed a reasonable investigation. |
| Cohen v. AM General Corp., 264 F.Supp.2d 616 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2003) | Illinois | Consumer brought action in state court against vehicle manufacturer, alleging breach of express and implied warranties under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and revoking acceptance. After removal, manufacturer moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion holding that consumer was entitled to enforce factory vehicle warranty against vehicle manufacturer under the Magnuson-Moss Act; leasing agency’s purchase of a vehicle from the manufacturer was for purposes other than resale under the Magnuson-Moss Act; and genuine issue of material fact as to whether vehicle was damaged at the time consumer accepted vehicle precluded summary judgment on issue of damages. |
| Connor v. Ford Motor Company, 172 F.R.D. 375 (N.D. Ill., Apr. 25, 1997) | Illinois | Buyer of automobile brought action against manufacturer in which she asserted claims of fraud, breach of warranty, and violations of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Manufacturer moved to dismiss, and the denied the motion holding that amount in controversy requirement under diversity jurisdiction statute was met; dealership which sold automobile was not party whose joinder was necessary if feasible; and allegations were sufficient to state claim. |
| Dawson v. Gillespie Chrysler, LLC,521 F.Supp.2d 756 (N.D. Ill. July 18, 2007) | Illinois | Buyer brought state court action against seller, an automobile dealership, alleging violations of the federal Odometer Requirements Act, the Illinois Odometer Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Seller obtained removal to federal court and moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion holding that seller waiver its right to compel arbitration when it failed to respond to buyer’s initial BBB request for arbitration. |
| Decker v. Transworld Systems, Inc.,2009 WL 2916819, No. 09-C-50073 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 1, 2009) & Vahidy v. Transworld Systems, Inc.,2009 WL 2916825, No. 09-C-50067 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 1, 2009) | Illinois | Consumers are husband and wife and filed two related actions alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act from debt collectors attempts to collect a single debt to which both consumers were obligors. Debt collector served each consumer with separate offers of judgment and consumers accepted. Pursuant to the offer consumers petitioned the court for attorneys’ fees. The trial court granted in the amount of $350.00 in costs and $1,975.60 in fees to husband and $1,994.90 in attorneys’ fees and $350 in costs to wife. |
| Farrar v. Receivable Management Services, 2010 WL 2720786, No. 09-cv-149-JPG (S.D. Ill., July 08, 2010) | Illinois | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The parties settled and pursuant to the agreement consumer petitioned the court for attorneys’ fees and costs. The trial court granted the motion in the amount of $5,586.20. |
| Farrar v. Receivable Management Services, 2010 WL 747208, No. 09-cv-149-JPG (S.D. Ill. Mar. 1, 2010) | Illinois | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The parties settled and pursuant to the agreement consumer petitioned the court for attorneys’ fees and costs. Consumer moved to file an amended motion for attorneys’ fees to include an additional exhibit. The trial court granted the motion. |
| Hinton v. Trans Union, LLC, et al., 2004 WL 1114744, No. 03-C-2311 (N.D. Ill. May 4, 2004) | Illinois | Consumer filed an action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and USA Funds moved to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion holding that consumer’s claim that USA Funds impermissibly accessed his credit report without a legitimate business reason to do so and consumer suffered damages as a result is sufficient under Fed. R. 8(a)(2). |
| Hinton v. USA Funds,2005 WL 730963, No. 03-C-2311 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2005) | Illinois | Consumer filed an action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and USA Funds moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion as to consumer’s negligent noncompliance with § 1681s-2(b) claim holding that the reasonableness of USA Funds investigation was not beyond question so as to warrant summary judgment. The trial court denied summary judgment on the § 1681b claim holding that a factual issue exists regarding whether consumer initiated a business transaction with USA Funds. |
| Jensen v. Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co.,2005 WL 2007123, No. 04-C-2945 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2005) | Illinois | Consumer brought action against companies under Fair Credit Reporting Act alleging failure to perform a reasonable investigation of his credit dispute. Peoples Gas moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Peoples Gas conducted a reasonable investigation. |
| Jones v. Fleetwood Motor Home, et al., 1998 WL 35276671, No. 98-cv-03061 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 03, 1998) | Illinois | Motor home purchaser brought action against dealership, chassis manufacturer, and coach manufacturer alleging breach of warranty claims under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Illinois Commercial Code. Fleetwood filed a motion to bar testimony of consumer’s expert and the trial court denied the motion. |
| ones v. Fleetwood Motor Homes, Crystal Valley, RV, Inc., and Ford Motor Co., 127 F.Supp.2d 958 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2000) | Illinois | Motor home purchaser brought action against dealership, chassis manufacturer, and coach manufacturer alleging breach of warranty claims under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Illinois Commercial Code. Following partial summary judgment, jury returned verdict in favor of dealership and chassis manufacturer, but against coach manufacturer, and awarded purchaser damages. Coach manufacturer moved for judgment as a matter of law, and purchaser moved to amend judgment to award him refund and rescission. Coach manufacturer, dealership, and purchaser moved for attorney fees and costs. The District Court denied judgment as a matter of law, Fleetwood’s motion for costs and attorney fees, Crystal Valley’s motion for attorneys’ fees and granted buyer’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $23,453.00 holding that: (1) expert testimony was not required to prove that repairs were not completed within a reasonable period of time; (2) evidence supported jury finding that manufacturer did not make repairs within reasonable number of attempts; (3) purchaser was entitled to loss of use damages; (4) purchaser was not entitled to receive equitable relief of refund or rescission; (5) purchaser had no duty to pay manufacturer’s costs; (6) dealership was not entitled to attorney fees; (7) dealership was not entitled to statutory costs, although it was entitled to actual costs for duplication and court reporting; and (8) purchaser was entitled to award for reasonable attorney fees, although fee multiplier was disallowed. |
| Kemper v. Coachman Recreational Vehicle Co., LLC,408 F.Supp.2d 604 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 13, 2006) | Illinois | Buyer brought action against recreational vehicle dealership, alleging that dealership sold him defective motor home and failed to repair it properly. Dealership moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion holding that buyer presented sufficient evidence of damages to preclude summary judgment. |
| King v. Retailers National Bank,388 F.Supp.2d 913 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 19, 205) | Illinois | Consumer sued bank in state court alleging state law claims of defamation and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Bank removed and consumer filed motion to remand. The District Court granted the motion holding that the Fair Credit Reporting Act did not preempt state law claims and consumer’s request for “substantial” punitive damages was insufficient to support finding that amount in controversy exceeded jurisdictional requirement of $75,000. |
| Lucero v. The CBE Group, Inc., 2010 WL 3894043, No. 09-C-2012 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2010) | Illinois | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and debt collector moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether there was a reasonable likelihood that debt collector intended to pursue garnishment or litigation against consumer. |
| Luxenburg v. Equifax Credit Information Services,2005 WL 78947, No. 03-C-5440 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 12, 2005) | Illinois | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and debt collector moved to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion as to consumer’s § 1692g(b) claim holding that AFNI’s employee conduct in demanding payment after consumer requested verification but before debt was verified precludes summary judgment. |
| Massana v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.,2000 WL 988163 (N.D. Ill. July 18, 2000) | Illinois | Car buyer brought a breach of warranty action against manufacturer under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. A jury found in favor of car buyer and awarded him $78,500.00 in damages. Pursuant to the Act buyer sought attorneys’ fees and costs. The trial court granted the motion in the amount of $20,594.00 in attorneys’ fees and $508.16 in costs. |
| McGrath v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4531373, No. 07-C-1519 (N.D. Ill., Apr. 29, 2008) | Illinois | Plaintiffs suffered water damage inside their home and filed a claim with their insurance company but the claim was denied. As a result, plaintiffs brought lawsuit for breach of insurance contract and Defendant filed a motion to strike Plaintiffs’ motion to bar portions of expert testimony and a motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motions holding that plaintiffs successfully presented a prima facie case, defendant failed to show the applicability of any exclusion from coverage, and entered an order that deemed established defendant’s liability to plaintiffs for breach of insurance contract. The trial court then continued the proceedings to trial on the amount of damages. |
| Mehta v. Des Plaines Development Ltd., 2004 WL 1656580, No. 01-C-1915 (N.D. Ill. July 22, 2004) | Illinois | Plaintiff brought a civil rights action against Defendants for discrimination based on his national origin. Defendants brought summary judgment motion and the trial court granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 § U.S.C. 1985(3) claims. |
| Osuna v. Equifax Credit Information Services,2004 WL 1874985, No. 02-C-6455 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 4, 2004) | Illinois | Consumer brought action against credit agencies and bank alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Bank moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion holding that whether bank’s actions regarding the verification were reasonable is a question for the jury. |
| Pederson v. Monaco Coach Corp.,2003 WL 1524507, No. 02-C-7486 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 28, 2003) | Illinois | Consumer brought breach of warranty action and defendant filed a second motion for a more definite statement. The trial court denied the motion holding that defendant has the opportunity to obtain additional information through discovery. |
| Smith v. Monaco Coach Corp., 2004 WL 1746883 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2004) | Illinois | Purchasers of a motor home brought action against partial manufacturer under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and partial manufacturer moved to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion as to purchaser’s express warranty holding that interpretation of the contractual terms are best left for a later state of the litigation. |
| Smith v. Monaco Coach Corp.,334 F.Supp.2d 1065 (N.D. Ill., Jun. 16, 2004) | Illinois | Buyers sued motor home manufacturer, alleging breaches of warranty pursuant to Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Defendant moved to dismiss certain claims. The trial court denied the motion as to purchasers’ breach of express warranty claim holding that buyers pointed to numerous defects covered by the warranty and alleged that manufacturer did not successfully exclude coverage for the other defects and this is enough to state a claim and to survive a motion to dismiss. |
| Tatar v. Trans Union, LLC, et al.,2003 WL 22478941, No. 03-C-5033 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 31, 2003) | Illinois | Consumer brought action against credit reporting agencies and bank alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and state law defamation. Bank moved to transfer the case. The trial court denied transfer holding that bank did not make an adequate showing that the Central District is the more appropriate district. |
| Varnado v. Trans Union, LLC,2004 WL 1093488, No. 03-C-6937 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2004) | Illinois | Consumer brought action against credit reporting agencies and Nicor Gas alleging violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Nicor Gas moved to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion holding consumer may be able to prove facts of proper notice which would entitle him to relief. |
| Varnado v. Trans Union, LLC, 2004 WL 1918900, No. 03-C-6937 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 2004) | Illinois | Consumer brought action against credit reporting agencies and Nicor Gas alleging violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Nicor Gas moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion holding that the release given to the settlement join tortfeasor does not purport to release any of the other joint tortfeasors. |
| Vlasic v. Equifax Credit Information Services, ABN AMRO,2004 WL 1381031, No. 03-C-4044 (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2004) | Illinois | Consumer had a mortgage loan with a subsidiary of AMRO and brought suit for inaccurately reporting information to credit agencies under Fair Credit Reporting Act. AMRO moved for sanctions and the trial court denied same holding that although consumer’s arguments were without merit sanctions were not warranted. |
| American Sec. Mortg. v. Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc., 1998 WL 70609, No. 97-C-4799 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 1998) | Illinois | Car lessee and finance company brought action against car manufacturer for breach of express and implied warranties of merchantability under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. A jury trial was held and jury awarded plaintiffs damages in the amount of $14,700 for breach of implied warranty and plaintiffs sought attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Act. The trial court granted the petition in the amount of $12,170 in fees and $150 in costs. |
| Gannucci v. Fleetwood Motor Homes of Indiana, Inc., 2005 L 3237853, No. 3:05-CV-501RM (N.D. Ind. Nov. 29, 2005) | Indiana | Motor home buyer brought action against manufacturer for breach of warranty and manufacturer dismissed. The trial court denied the motion holding that the complaint provides adequate notice of the claims. |
| Holmes v. Lockhart Morris Montgomery, Inc.,2010 WL 3719743, No. 3:10-CV-40-TLS (N.D. Indiana Sept. 14, 2010) | Indiana | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector failed to file an answer or otherwise respond and consumer moved for default judgment. The trial court granted the motion in the amount of $1,000.00 in statutory damages, $1,665.00 in attorneys’ fees, and $415.00 in filing and service fees. |
| Miley v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. and Fleetwood Travel Trailers of Indiana, Inc.,2006 WL 146630, No. 105CV589LJMWTL (S.D. Ind. Jan. 18, 2006) | Indiana | Purchaser brought breach of warranty claim against manufacturer under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Manufacturer moved for certification of dismissal of consumer’s claim that manufacturer’s warranty failed to meet certain federal minimum standards. The denied the motion to certify holding that granting manufacturer’s motion would only delay the ultimate resolution of this dispute. |
| Miley v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.,381 F.Supp.2d 839 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 10, 2005) | Indiana | Buyer of travel trailer brought action against trailer’s manufacturer under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and state law. Manufacturer moved to dismiss claim that it wrongfully disclaimed incidental and consequential damages. The trial court denied the motion holding that manufacturer’s warranty violated MMWA provision requiring disclaimers to appear “on the face of the warranty.” |
| Pizel v. Monaco Coach Corporation,224 F.R.D. 642 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 22, 2004) | Indiana | Purchaser of recreational vehicle brought action pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, alleging breach of written and implied warranties. Manufacturer moved to compel discovery of fee agreement between purchaser and his attorney. The trial court denied the motion holding that the fee information was not yet subject to discovery, given that it was not relevant unless purchaser finally prevailed. |
| Pizel v. Monaco Coach Corp.,2006 WL 397997, No. 3:04-CV-286-CAN (N.D. Ind. Feb. 15, 2006) | Indiana | Purchaser of recreational vehicle brought action pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, alleging breach of written and implied warranties. The case went to trial and the jury found manufacturer liable for $90,000 based on breach of implied warranties and manufacturer filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial court denied the motion holding that some evidence existed showing that consumer was damaged based on cost of repair. |
| Pizel v. Monaco Corp., 2005 WL 1842890, No. 3:04-CV- 286-CAN (N.D. Ind. Aug. 3, 2005) | Indiana | Purchaser of recreational vehicle brought action pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, alleging breach of written and implied warranties. Manufacturer filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to purchaser’s damages. |
| Pizel v. Monaco Coach Corporation,364 F.Supp.2d 790 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 8, 2005) | Indiana | Purchaser of recreational vehicle brought action pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, alleging breach of written and implied warranties. Purchaser moved for reconsideration of judgment in favor of manufacturer following intervening decision of Indiana Supreme Court. The trial court granted purchaser’s motion to reconsider the order as it related to the implied warranty of merchantability claim. |
| Kensium, LLC v. Central Transcription Services, LLC, 2009 WL 151418, No. 08-12944 (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2009) | Michigan | Illinois company provided transcription services to a Michigan company and Michigan company failed to remit full payment in breach of contract. Plaintiff then filed a motion for summary judgment and the trial court granted Plaintiff’s motion and awarded $82,412.65. |
| Dembski v. American Hondo Motor Company, Inc., 2006 WL 2331178, No. 06-6060-CV-SJ-REL (W.D. Mo. Aug. 10, 2006) | Missouri | Car buyers brought breach of warranty action under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) against manufacturer and manufacturer had the case removed. Car buyers filed motion to remand. The trial court granted the motion holding that since attorney’s feds are not included in the amount in controversy calculation for purposes of MMWA there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Hurocy v. Direct Merchants Credit Card Bank, N.A.,371 F.Supp.2d 1058 (E.D. Mo. June 6, 2005) | Missouri | Consumer brought action alleging that furnisher of information violated Fair Credit Reporting Act. Furnisher moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion holding that fact issues remained as to whether furnisher instructed credit reporting agency to delete disputed information from consumer’s credit report. |
| Atchoo v. Redline Recovery Services, LLC,2010 WL 1416738, No. 10-CV-21S (W.D. NY Apr. 15, 2010) | New York | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and debt collector filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative a more definite statement. The trial court denied the motion holding that consumer is not required to indicate when any actions occurred, the number of calls or whether consumer actually answered the phone. |
| Barksdale v. Global Check and Credit Services, LLC, 2010 WL 3070089, No. 09-CV-1034A (W.D. NY Aug. 4, 2010) | New York | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector failed to file an answer or otherwise respond and consumer sought default judgment. The trial court granted the motion in the amount of $500.00 in statutory damages and $1,932.61 in costs and fees. |
| Barrows v. Tri-Financial,2009 WL 3672069, No. 09-CV-292S (W.D. NY Oct. 30, 2009) | New York | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector failed to file an answer or otherwise respond and consumer sought default judgment. The trial court granted the motion in the amount of $1,000.00 in statutory damages and $2,205.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs. |
| Clark v. Brewer, Michaels & Kane, LLC, 2009 WL 3303716, No. 09-CV-188A (W.D. NY Oct. 14, 2009) | New York | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector failed to file an answer or otherwise respond and consumer sought default judgment. The trial court granted the motion in the amount of $500.00 in statutory of damages and $2,386.00 in costs and fees. |
| Dayton v. Northeast Financial Solutions, 2009 WL 4571819, No. 09-CV-549A (W.D. NY Dec. 7, 2009) | New York | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector failed to file an answer or otherwise respond and consumer sought default judgment. The trial court granted the motion in the amount of $750.00 in statutory damages and $1,663.50 in costs and fees. |
| Estay v. Moren and Woods, LLC, 2009 WL 5171881, No. 09-CV-620A (W.D. NY Dec. 22, 2009) | New York | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector failed to file an answer or otherwise respond and consumer sought default judgment. The trial court granted the motion in the amount of $250.00 in statutory damages and $1,767.50 in attorneys’ fees and costs. |
| Hoover v. Western New York Capital, 2010 WL 2472500, No. 09-CV-955A (W.D. NY June 16, 2010) | New York | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector failed to file an answer or otherwise respond and consumer sought default judgment. The trial court granted the motion in the amount of $500.00 in statutory damages and $2,091.61 in costs and fees. |
| Proctor v. PMR Law Group aka Profile Recovery Group, LLC, 2010 WL 4174723, No. 09-CV-1028S (W.D. NY Oct. 25, 2010) | New York | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector failed to file an answer or otherwise respond and consumer sought default judgment. The trial court granted the motion in the amount of $250.00 in statutory damages, $2,241.00 in attorneys’ fees, and $396.61 in costs. |
| Robbins v. Viking Recovery Services, LLC, 2010 WL 1840318, No. 09-CV-1030A (W.D. NY May 7, 2010) | New York | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector failed to file an answer or otherwise respond and consumer sought default judgment. The trial court granted the motion in the amount of $1,000.00 in statutory damages and $1,569.00 in costs and fees. |
| Taylor v. Morgan Stone and Associates, LLC,2010 WL 1816675, No. 09-CV-827S (W.D. NY May 4, 2010) | New York | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector failed to file an answer or otherwise respond and consumer sought default judgment. The trial court granted the motion in the amount of $250.00 in statutory damages, $1,634.50 in attorneys’ fees, and $350.00 in costs. |
| Benit v. Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., LLC,2007 WL 2572186, No. 2:06-cv-336-JDH-TPK (S.D. Ohio Aug. 31, 2007) | Ohio | Car buyer brought action against manufacturer for breach of warranty under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Ohio Nonconforming New Motor Vehicle Law. Defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of consumer’s complaints or repairs made to the vehicle more than one year after delivery. The court denied the motion holding that the complaints are relevant to a claim under the Lemon Law. |
| Diepenbrock v. Rinker Boat Company, LLC, et al., 2008 WL 2987162, No. 3:08-CV-1530 (N.D. Ohio July 30, 2008) | Ohio | Purchaser brought action against manufacturer for breach of warranty and manufacturer removed. Consumer filed motion to remand the case back to state court arguing that federal court lacked jurisdiction. The federal court granted the motion holding that manufacturer failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy met the jurisdictional threshold for either diversity or federal question jurisdiction. |
| Livingston v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, 2009 WL 4724268, No. 1:09-CV-384 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 2, 2009) | Ohio | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. After consumer accepted debt collector’s offer of judgment he moved for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Act. The trial court granted the motion in the amount of $2,951.20. |
| Szubski v. Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., LLC,796 N.E.2d 81, 124 Ohio Misc.2d 82 (Ct. of Common Pleas for Ohio, Apr. 8, 2003) | Ohio | Vehicle lessor brought claims against manufacturer for breach of written warranty and breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and also asserted a claim under the Ohio Lemon Law. Manufacturer moved to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion holding that lessor set forth allegations that state a cognizable claim under the Act. |
| Triscari v. Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., LLC, 2009 WL 1911855, No. 5:09-CV-1105 (N.D. Ohio June 29, 2009) | Ohio | Purchaser brought action against manufacturer for breach of warranty and manufacturer removed. Consumer filed motion to remand the case back to state court arguing that federal court lacked jurisdiction. The federal court granted the motion holding that manufacturer failed to establish that the amount in controversy met the jurisdictional threshold for either diversity or federal question jurisdiction. |
| Wamsley v. Kemp Creditors Interchange Receivables Management, LLC,2010 WL 1610734, No. 2:09-cv-769 (S.D. Ohio, Apr. 20, 2010) | Ohio | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The parties reach a bifurcated settlement and pursuant to same consumer filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Debt collector filed a notice of supplemental authority and consumer filed a motion to strike. The trial court granted consumer’s motion to strike holding that debt collector failed to follow applicable local rules and further granted consumer’s motion for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $350 in costs and $3,751.50 in attorneys’ fees. |
| Long v. Monaco Coach Corp., 2006 WL 2564040, No. 3:04-CV-203 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 31, 2006) | Tennessee | Purchasers of motor home brought breach of warranty action under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and manufacturer filed motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion in part holding that the allegations in the complaint could support a claim for punitive damages. |
| Suleski v. Bryant Lafayette & Associates,2010 WL 1904968 (E.D. Wis. May 10, 2010) | Wisconsin | Consumer brought action against debt collector alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Debt collector failed to file an answer or otherwise respond and consumer sought default judgment. The trial court granted the motion in the amount of $1,000.00 in statutory damages, $2,342.80 in attorneys’ fees and $350.00 in costs. |