Consumer Fraud lawsuit against a car dealership

John Does

    Vs.


AUTO DEALERSHIP X,

 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
MONMOUTH COUNTY

DOCKET No.

    CIVIL ACTION

    COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY
    
   
Plaintiff, John Doe by way of complaint against the defendants, states:

COUNT I

1.    On or about 2014, the defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees were licensed to do business in the State of New Jersey.

2.    The plaintiff attempted to purchase a vehicle from the defendants.  In this regard, the plaintiff signed various documentations with the intention of buying a car, provided monies to the defendants, signed all documentation and went through with the transaction.

3.    The defendants failed to provide the plaintiff with the title in a timely fashion and, as such, breached the applicable warranty of title under New Jersey law and thus violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act entitling the plaintiff to cost and fees of the lawsuit.  The car was not in good shape and not as represented by the selling dealership and not as represented by the salesman at the dealership and the salesman took the deposit with no credit being provided.

4.    It is asserted that the defendants committed violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act with regard to their conduct and failing to provide the plaintiff with the appropriate title and documentation representing that the car was certified when in fact it was not.

5.    In addition, the defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees either stole or permitted to be stealing various items out of the plaintiff’s vehicle while it was under the defendants’ control for which the defendants are obligated to pay the plaintiff for reimbursement of such losses.

6.    The plaintiff’s counsel sent a notice of revocation.  The defendants failed to revoke the transaction in violation of the Uniform Commercial Code because the defendants failed to provide the appropriate title work or registration so as to permit the plaintiff to drive the vehicle.

7.  The defendant failed to act reasonably and intentionally violated the plaintiff’s rights causing damages to the plaintiff in the form of an ascertainable loss or measurable loss to the plaintiff for which the defendant is responsible under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the uniform commercial code (UCC) as adopted by the State of New Jersey as accepted by New Jersey Courts

 WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally, together with interest and costs of the suit.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by a jury of six (6) jurors as to all issues raised in these pleadings.

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 4:25-4, the Court is advised that JONATHAN RUDNICK, ESQ., is hereby designated trial counsel.


CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that, pursuant to R. 4:5-1(b)(2), this matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any Court or of a pending arbitration, nor is any action or arbitration proceeding contemplated.


                        Jonathan Rudnick Esq
                        Attorneys for Plaintiff



                           BY:__________________________________
                            JONATHAN RUDNICK, ESQ.

Dated:     August 5, 2014