Sample Lawsuit: Damaged Car Complaint
CARTON AND RUDNICK
788 SHREWSBURY AVENUE
BUILDING 2, SUITE 204
TINTON FALLS, N.J. 07724
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS.
OUR FILE NO.:
JOHN DOES 1-100,
Defendants. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY
The plaintiff, Paul Plaintiff, by way of complaint against the defendants, states the following:
1. On or about June 2012, the plaintiff acquired the subject automobile from the defendant, John Doe. The Vehicle Identification Number is XXXXXXXX. As part of the transaction, the defendant dealership affirmatively misrepresented the condition of the vehicle, intentionally and willfully to the detriment of the plaintiff upon which the plaintiff relied causing the plaintiff damages. The defendant dealership knew or should have known that the vehicle was previously involved in an accident and/or sustained serious damage through a flood damage confirmed by XXXXXXX Infinity.
2. After the plaintiff purchased the car, he took the vehicle to an authorized Infiniti dealership, XXXXXXXX, and they provided the plaintiff with the service history which indicated the vehicle was previously in a flood. The defendant, XXXXXX, claimed they had no knowledge of the prior damage of the vehicle.
3. It is believed that the defendant, Infiniti of XXXXXXX, made affirmative misrepresentations of fact and/or material omissions of fact pertaining to the prior damage on the vehicle. An authorized Infiniti dealer had access to the service history and were clearly aware of the flood damage when they sold it at auction. They failed to make appropriate disclosures at auction and committed fraud and consumer fraud with regard to the plaintiff.
4. No privity of contract is required for a consumer fraud claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act between the plaintiff and the defendant, Infiniti of XXXXXXX. They subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of New Jersey on a general basis. The defendant, Infiniti of XXXXXXX, has sufficient expectations being named as a defendant in lawsuits in New Jersey.
5. Moreover, the auction which was run by the manufacturer, XXXXXX of North America, also had an obligation to make appropriate disclosures to a seller of the subject vehicle. And/or they had a responsibility to make sure that the selling dealer made appropriate disclosures to the plaintiff.
6. The plaintiff has sustained an ascertainable loss together with interest and costs of the suit.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants jointly and severally together with interest and costs of the suit together with punitive damages.
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.
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.
CARTON & RUDNICK
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JONATHAN RUDNICK, ESQ.
Dated: November 20, 2012
consumer fraud lawsuit consumer lawyer