This case was last updated from PACER on 10/14/2021 at 05:15:44 (UTC).

Ryan Donaghy Vincent v. Hyundai Motor America, et al

Case Summary

On October 12, 2021, Ryan Donaghy Vincent (“Plaintiff”), represented by Tionna Dolin of Strategic Legal Practices APC, filed a contract lawsuit against Hyundai Motor America (“Defendant HMA”) and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, seeking damages plus restitution along with pre-judgment interest, rescission of purchase contract, and civil penalty for Defendant’s alleged failure to service or repair the vehicle to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of opportunities. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California. 

 

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that, “On or about April 11, 2020, Plaintiff purchased a 2019 Hyundai Genesis G80, vehicle identification number KMTFN4JB4KU326125 (hereafter “Subject Vehicle” or "the Vehicle") which was manufactured and or distributed by Defendant, and sold by Defendant’s authorized retailer in Victorville, San Bernardino County, California. The Vehicle was purchased or used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Plaintiff purchased the Vehicle from a person or entity engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing, or selling consumer goods at retail.” 

 

Plaintiff further alleged that, “In sum, during the express warranty period, the Vehicle developed various defects, including but not limited to, defects related to the powertrain system, including the engine, and/or transmission; exterior defects; A/C defects; and other defects. The defects substantially impair the use, value and/or safety of the Subject Vehicle.” “Yet, on or about December 10, 2020, with approximately 17,816 miles on odometer, Plaintiff returned the Subject Vehicle to Defendant’s authorized repair facility with ongoing engine concerns. Defendant’s facility contacted Defendant directly concerning the Subject Vehicle and performed various engine repairs including replacing the turbo assembly. The Subject Vehicle was out of service for over 30 days.”

 

Plaintiff also alleged that, “Thereafter, Plaintiff continued to experience symptoms of the Subject Vehicle’s defects despite Defendant’s representations that the Subject Vehicle was repaired.” “Defendant failed to fully conform the Vehicle to its warranty as required under the Song Beverly Act despite being given a reasonable number of opportunities, and failed to promptly offer restitution as required pursuant to the Song Beverly Act.”

 

Plaintiff lists out six claims for relief. The first claim is for violation of Subdivision (D) of Civil Code section 1793.2. The second claim is for violation of Subdivision (B) of Civil Code section 1793.2. The third claim is for violation of Subdivision (A)(3) of Civil Code section 1793.2. The fourth claim is for breach of express written warranty. The fifth claim is for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and the sixth claim is for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

 

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff requested the court for a judgment against Defendant for Plaintiff’s actual damages, restitution, a civil penalty in the amount of two times Plaintiff’s actual damages, and for any consequential and incidental damages. Further, Plaintiff requested a judgment for equitable and injunctive relief, costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees reasonably incurred in connection with the commencement and prosecution of this action. Plaintiff further requested for rescission of the purchase contract and/or restitution of all monies expended, prejudgment interest at the legal rate, and for such other relief as the court may deem proper. 

 

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:

    5:21-CV-01727

  • Filing Date:

    10/12/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

RYAN DONAGHY VINCENT

Defendant

Hyundai Motor America

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Tionna Dolin

Attorney at Strategic Legal Practices APC

1840 Century Park East Suite 430

Los Angeles, CA 90067

 

Court Documents

#3

(#3) Certification and NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff RYAN DONAGHY VINCENT, identifying Ryan Donaghy Vincent. (Dolin, Tionna) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

#2

(#2) COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-32139312 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff RYAN DONAGHY VINCENT. (Attorney Tionna Dolin added to party RYAN DONAGHY VINCENT(pty:pla))(Dolin, Tionna) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

#1

(#1) CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff RYAN DONAGHY VINCENT. (Dolin, Tionna) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/12/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) Certification and NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff RYAN DONAGHY VINCENT, identifying Ryan Donaghy Vincent. (Dolin, Tionna) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-32139312 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff RYAN DONAGHY VINCENT. (Attorney Tionna Dolin added to party RYAN DONAGHY VINCENT(pty:pla))(Dolin, Tionna) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff RYAN DONAGHY VINCENT. (Dolin, Tionna) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA is a litigant