This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 12/07/2021 at 05:13:07 (UTC).

Ryan Hardy et al v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. et al

Case Summary

On December 3, 2021, Ryan Hardy, Troy Lucassian, and Todd Brown (“Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, represented by Tarek H. Zohdy of Capstone Law APC, filed a personal property fraud lawsuit against Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. and Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (“Defendants” or “Mitsubishi”), seeking declaratory relief and injunctive relief along with prejudgment and post-judgement interests among other relief for the alleged fraud by Defendants. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the Central District of California. 

 

In the complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that, “Defendants manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold the Class Vehicles without disclosing that the Class Vehicles’ Continuously Variable Transmission (“CVT”) was defective” and “The CVT Defect causes sudden, unexpected shaking and violent jerking (commonly referred to as “juddering” or “shuddering”) when drivers attempt to accelerate their vehicles; it causes the vehicle to lag or delay when the driver tries to accelerate, causing an unsafe, unpredictable acceleration; it exhibits a hard deceleration or “clunk” when drivers either slow down or accelerate at low speeds.”

 

Plaintiffs further alleged that, “Defendants undertook affirmative measures to conceal CVT failures and other malfunctions” and “Defendants had superior and/or exclusive knowledge of material facts regarding the CVT Defect due to their pre-production testing, design failure mode analysis, aggregate part sales, dealer audits, aggregate warranty information, customer complaints made to NHTSA and online, and customer complaints made to Mitsubishi and its dealers.”

 

Plaintiffs also alleged that, “Defendants’ failure to disclose the CVT Defect has caused Plaintiffs and putative class members to lose the use of their Vehicles and/or incur costly repairs that have conferred an unjust substantial benefit upon Defendants” and “Had Defendants disclosed the CVT Defect, Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have purchased the Class Vehicles, would have paid less for them, or would have required Defendants to replace, or pay for the replacement of, the defective CVT with a non-defective version before their warranty periods expired.”

 

There are fifteen claims of relief laid down by Plaintiff. The first claim is for alleged violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The second claim is for alleged violation of California Business & Professions Code. The third claim is for alleged breach of implied warranty pursuant to Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The fourth claim is for alleged breach of express warranty pursuant to Cal. Com. Code. The fifth claim is for alleged violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. The sixth claim is for alleged breach of express warranty. The seventh claim is for alleged breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The eighth and ninth claims are for alleged violation of New York General Business Law. The tenth claim is for alleged breach of express warranty. The eleventh claim is for alleged breach of implied warranty. The twelfth and thirteenth claims are for alleged breach of express warranty and implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The fourteenth claim is for alleged fraud by omission. The fifteenth claim is for the alleged unjust enrichment. 

 

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff requested the court for certifying this action as a class action. Further, Plaintiff requested the court for declaratory relief and injunctive relief along with compensatory, exemplary, and statutory damages, including interest; award of attorneys’ fees and costs; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and any other relief the court deems just.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    8:21-CV-01983

  • Filing Date:

    12/03/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Personal Property Fraud

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Ryan Hardy

Troy Lucassian

Todd Brown

Defendants

Mitsubishi Motors North America Inc

Mitsubishi Motors Corporation

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Tarek H Zohdy

Attorney at Capstone Law APC

1875 Century Park East Suite 1000

Los Angeles, CA 90067

 

Court Documents

1 #1

Main Document

1 #1

Exhibit Declaration of Tarek H. Zohdy

1 #2

Exhibit TSB 20-23-001REV

#2

(#2) CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiffs Todd Brown, Ryan Hardy, Troy Lucassian. (Zohdy, Tarek) (Entered: 12/03/2021)

#3

(#3) Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 , Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 filed by Plaintiffs Todd Brown, Ryan Hardy, Troy Lucassian. (Zohdy, Tarek) (Entered: 12/03/2021)

#4

(#4) NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Todd Brown, Ryan Hardy, Troy Lucassian, (Zohdy, Tarek) (Entered: 12/03/2021)

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/03/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Todd Brown, Ryan Hardy, Troy Lucassian, (Zohdy, Tarek) (Entered: 12/03/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 , Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 filed by Plaintiffs Todd Brown, Ryan Hardy, Troy Lucassian. (Zohdy, Tarek) (Entered: 12/03/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiffs Todd Brown, Ryan Hardy, Troy Lucassian. (Zohdy, Tarek) (Entered: 12/03/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-32424004 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiffs Ryan Hardy, Todd Brown, Troy Lucassian. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Declaration of Tarek H. Zohdy, #2 Exhibit TSB 20-23-001REV) (Attorney Tarek H Zohdy added to party Todd Brown(pty:pla), Attorney Tarek H Zohdy added to party Ryan Hardy(pty:pla), Attorney Tarek H Zohdy added to party Troy Lucassian(pty:pla))(Zohdy, Tarek) (Entered: 12/03/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Tarek H Zohdy