Auto Fraud Legal Center has filed a class action lawsuit in Riverside County Superior Court on behalf of Jamiel and Martha Gutierrez and a class of auto purchasers against Pedder Nissan in Hemet. The proposed class identified in the lawsuit is consumers who purchased vehicles from Pedder Nissan in Hemet and signed contracts that fail to disclose deferred down payments, instead falsely stating the customer had made a cash down payment. The Plaintiffs allege Pedder Nissan in Hemet had them sign a separate Automobile Hold Check Agreement that contained different terms than their purchase contract relating to their down payment. Plaintiffs purchased a used Nissan Pathfinder from Pedder Nissan in Hemet in April 2009.
If any of these practices happened to you at Pedder Nissan in Hemet, or any other dealership in California, and you would like more information about this class action case or how the Auto Fraud Legal Center can help you, please feel free to contact Hawk Barry, either by phone at 800-466-5366, or via electronic mail at hawk@rbblawgroup.com.
Learn MoreAuto Fraud Legal Center has filed a class action lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court on behalf of Jonas Domkus and Angelyn LaPorte-Domkus and a class of auto purchasers against Crevier BMW. The proposed class identified in the Domkus’ lawsuit is consumers who purchased vehicles from Crevier BMW and signed backdated contracts. The Domkus’ allege Crevier BMW would cancel contracts and have customers sign new contracts, and the new contracts would be dated the date of the customer’s original contract. The Domkus’ purchased a used Mini Cooper from Crevier BMW in September 2009 and signed contracts at least two days apart that were both dated the same date.
If any of these practices happened to you at Crevier BMW, or any other dealership in California, and you would like more information about this class action case or how the Auto Fraud Legal Center can help you, please feel free to contact Hawk Barry, either by phone at 800-466-5366, or via electronic mail at hawk@rbblawgroup.com.
Learn MoreRecently there was an interesting Op-Ed piece in the New York Times by Stanford Professor Amalia D. Kessler on Arbitration:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/opinion/stuck-in-arbitration.html?_r=1&ref=opinion Professor Kessler notes that more and more corporations are forcing its consumers and employees to agree prior to the existence of any dispute – that if there is a dispute – it must be handled in arbitration. Such a concept seems illogical, but a number of courts including the United States Supreme Court have upheld this practice. These Courts often point out that the arbitration system is fair and efficient. This, however, raises the question that if it is so far and efficient, why does someone have to agree to it before the dispute arises? Why not wait until there is a dispute and then ask if the parties want to go to arbitration. This is not the way the arbitration process works for consumers and employees.
Originally, arbitration was a mechanicism to be used by businesses or entities with equal bargaining power, whereby they could negotiation a manner to handle disputes outside of court. About 30 years ago the use of arbitration changed — as businesses and employers started to use them in their dealings with consumers and employees — and Courts agreed that mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses could be used in this manner to force consumers and employees into arbitration. Essentially, Goliath dictates to consumers and employees the terms of their relationship, and there is no David to save them. Legislation has been introduced in Congress a number of times to level the relationship between consumers and employees when it comes to arbitration; however, these proposed bills have gone no where. Why? Because Goliath ensures they don’t.
Professor Kessler also discusses the similarities between the current manner in which arbitration is being applied to consumers and employees and the ancient practice of conciliation. Conciliation was a system where respected community leaders would negotiate compromises between individuals instead of going to court. The system did not take hold for obvious reasons — it is susceptable to corruption. Two significant situations in which conciliation was used in the past included newly freed slaves during Reconstruction and European peasants recently released from serfdom. History shows us that these slaves and peasants were not treated fairly. Why should we think that a system created and designed to help corporations with disputes with consumers and employees would be any different? It is not. Look at what happened with the National Arbitration Forum: http://pubcit.typepad.com/files/nafconsentdecree.pdf
Learn MoreAuto Fraud Legal Center has filed a class action lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of Sandra Dulac and two classes of auto purchasers against Timmons Long Beach and Chase Auto Finance. The first class identified in Ms. Dulac’s lawsuit is consumers who purchased vehicles from Timmons Long Beach and whose contracts do not separately itemize fees due to the DMV for license fees and registration, transfer, and titling fees. The second class identified in Ms. Dulac’s lawsuit is all car buyers in California whose purchase contracts do not separately itemize fees due to the DMV for license fees and registration, transfer, and titling fees, and whose contracts are held by Chase Auto Finance. Ms. Dulac purchased a new Volkswagen Routan from Timmons Long Beach in July 2009, and her contract falsely stated registration, transfer, and titling fees were not applicable to her transaction. Ms. Dulac’s contract was assigned by Timmons Long Beach to Chase Auto Finance. The contract, the standard form vehicle purchase contract used in California, included a clause whereby the holder of the contract, in this case Chase Auto Finance, agreed to be responsible for any claims that could be brought against the seller, Timmons Long Beach.
If any of these practices happened to you at Timmons Long Beach, or any other dealership in California, or your contract was assigned to Chase Auto Finance, and you would like more information about this class action case or how the Auto Fraud Legal Center can help you, please feel free to contact Hawk Barry, either by phone at 800-466-5366, or via electronic mail at hawk@rbblawgroup.com.
Learn MoreAuto Fraud Legal Center has filed a class action lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of Lisa Williams and four classes of auto purchasers against Car Pros Kia, AmeriCredit Financial Services, and ExpressLink. The first class identified in Ms. Williams’ lawsuit is consumers who purchased vehicles from Car Pros Kia and signed contracts that fail to disclose deferred down payments, instead falsely stating the customer had made a cash down payment. The second class identified in Ms. Williams’ lawsuit is consumers who purchased vehicles from Car Pros Kia in Carson and whose contracts do not separately itemize fees due to the DMV for license fees and registration, transfer, and titling fees. A subclass is identified in Ms. Williams’ lawsuit of those car buyers whose purchase contracts are held by AmeriCredit Financial Services. The third class identified in Ms. Williams’ lawsuit is those car buyers at Car Pros Kia in Carson who were charged California Tire Fees for used tires, rather than new tires. Finally, the fourth class in Ms. Williams’ lawsuit are consumers who purchased vehicles in California and were provided with insurance coverage by the dealership using ExpressLink’s “Insure Express” software, and were provided with an “Evidence of Auto Insurance” document that misrepresented the scope of the insurance.
If any of these practices happened to you at Car Pros Kia in Carson, or any other dealership in California, and you would like more information about this class action case or how the Auto Fraud Legal Center can help you, please feel free to contact Hawk Barry, either by phone at 800-466-5366, or via electronic mail at hawk@rbblawgroup.com.
Learn MoreAuto Fraud Legal Center has filed a class action lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court on behalf of Amoura Burton and three classes of auto purchasers against Fremont Toyota. The first class identified in Ms. Burton’s lawsuit is consumers who purchased vehicles from Fremont Toyota and signed backdated contracts. Ms. Burton alleges Fremont Toyota would cancel contracts and have customers sign new contracts, and the new contracts would be dated the date of the customer’s original contract. The second class identified in Ms. Burton’s lawsuit is consumers who purchased vehicles from Fremont Toyota and were automatically charged an Optional DMV Electronic Filing Fee. Ms. Burton alleges that instead of giving customers the choice of whether to pay Fremont Toyota to electronically submit their registration information to the DMV, Fremont Toyota automatically charged its customers for this service, profiting on every deal. Finally, the third class of consumers identified in Ms. Burton’s lawsuit are those consumers who purchased vehicles from Fremont Toyota and signed a Debit Authorization Form. Ms. Burton alleges the Debit Authorization Form contains provisions in violation of California law.
If any of these practices happened to you at Fremont Toyota, or any other dealership in California, and you would like more information about this class action case or how the Auto Fraud Legal Center can help you, please feel free to contact Hawk Barry, either by phone at 800-466-5366, or via electronic mail at hawk@rbblawgroup.com.
Learn MoreThe Consumers for Automobile Reliability and Safety “CARS” and other advocacy groups in the rental car safety battle have linked up with Change.org, which is the largest online platform for social change in the US. There are asking concerned citizens to sign a petition that asks Enterprise Rent -A-Car to cease its practice of renting vehicles that are under a safety recall to hapless, unsuspecting rental car customers — in one particularly horrific case, two sisters, ages 24 and 20, were killed after they were led to believe they were getting an “upgrade.”
Polling results show that 86% of people — even in Enterprise’s home state of MO — think this practice should be outlawed. If you feel the same, please go to link below and sign the petition.
http://www.change.org/petitions/enterprise-rent-a-car-stop-opposing-a-law-prohibiting-companies-from-renting-out-recalled-cars You can also read about this on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/StopUnsafeRentals?sk=wall
Learn MoreThe Gawker Media-owned car weblog Jalopnik asked readers to contribute the 10 most important questions to ask when buying a used car as part of their daily “Answers of the Day” segment. The 10 best questions published on October 19, 2011 were:
10. Is this the original paint? — New paint could indicate car was rusting or involved in a previous accident. 9. Can I check the oil? — An “earmark for trouble with a used car,” Jalopnik says, look for water, fuel, or foam in the oil.
8. Can you put this on the lift? — This will allow you to check for leaks or rust, but furthermore, you know there is something amiss if the dealer will not let you do this.
7. Why are you selling it? — It is “a question that openly invites the seller to lie to you,” Jalopnik says, but it will still put the seller on the spot.
6. Who was the previous owner? — The more you know about the history of the vehicle, the more comfortable you will be. You can also learn a lot from how a dealer reacts if you ask for a phone number of the previous owner.
5. Do you have the title in hand? — An important issue that can cause larger problems later if overlooked.
4. Can I take it for a test drive? — One of the most telling parts of the process, you should most certainly walk away if the seller refuses.
3. Can I see the Carfax? — Or at least see some similar type of vehicle history report, and be sure you have obtained the right VIN number to avoid a mix-and-match.
2. Can I see the maintenance history? — While you should not expect to see an complete service record history, insufficient information from the seller here will probably affect your decision on whether or not to purchase the vehicle.
1. Can I take this to my mechanic? — This is essentially a must. A refusal from the seller should equate to a refusal to give any further thought toward purchasing the vehicle.
Many instances of auto dealership fraud involve sellers taking advantage of consumers who do not perform due diligence beforehand. If you believe that a car dealer violated California lemon law in your last purchase or you need help getting out of a car contract, contact our office today to set up a free consultation with one of our California lemon law lawyers.
Learn MoreAn international investigation of price fixing has led to four class-action lawsuits alleging that a scheme to raise the price of wire harnesses in turn raised the price of vehicles, Crain’s Detroit Business reported on October 18, 2011. Court documents show the class action suits seek damages exceeding $5 million.
According to Crain’s, the suits stem from an investigation of the global wire harness business that began in 2010, with the U.S. Department of Justice and officials from the European Union and Japan being involved in the investigations. The Justice Department hit Furukawa with a $200 million fine, and Crain’s said three of its executives are scheduled to plead guilty for their role in alleged global price-fixing scheme. The Federal Bureau of Investigation raided several suppliers in its antitrust investigation, but the company’s North American subsidiary, American Furukawa, took the first blow as a result of the 20-month investigation.
We have posted before how price fixing creates profit for some companies by ultimately driving up the cost for the consumer. The cost of the wire harness in your vehicle is certainly not a common form of auto dealership fraud, but antitrust laws are supposed to protect Americans from price fixing between manufacturers and retailers. State and federal laws are in place to make sure you are not deceived in your car purchase, and if you believe that a dealership violated California lemon law, contact our California lemon law attorneys today to get a free evaluation of your case.
Learn More
ES
