Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-05328 I ,; \ ,'I , , . ~.JUL () 2 1998 GEORGE SULLENBERGER, JR., Plaintiff v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL LAW " , , () I '" , ,I I 'i , , ,'q '[--. , " . 'I.') " , :/') , ,0 , I , 'I I , ! " l , ,'I .. , (. .~:; :"t .. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant NO. 97~5328 PROPOSED POINTS OF CHARGE OF DEFENDANT. CHRYSLER CORPORAT~ON 1. Under the law and evidence, your verdict mus~: be for Chrysler Corporation. " \ I I' ~',' , I " . 15. If you uecide to award plaintiff damages, then those damages may nQt be based upon conjecture or specula~ion. &!ddell v. L.ev~n, 537 F.2d 726, 743-33 (3d Cir. 1976) I Russell v. City of Wildwood, 428 F.2d 1176 (3d Cir. 1970) . " ,', I , , ,....,oi 'I " " , , ," . '" 1',1' -15- 1.6. It is pla~ntiff's burden to prove that he suffered damages. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) , ' ' " 5.50 (Burden of Proof) . I' -16- , , " " " "" " , , ,., "',' " , , , , ',' . v, ~JUI II % 1~I~H COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL LAW GEORGE SULLENBERGER, JR.. Plaintiff CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant NO. 97-5328 ('.., , .? ) , : .. . : I , , , I 'J , :,",') , ~ I I " ) ,I .. I , " ,.... '. AMENDED WITNESS LIST OF DEFENDANT. CHRYSLER CORPORATION i. Jim Salava, Chrysler'S zone technician.' 2.' Don Kennedy, Shop Foreman for Cumberland Valley Motors (Dodge), Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. MARSHALL, 0 COLEMAN AND WARNER, BY, MATTHEW L. OWENS, ESQUIRE 100 Pine Street, Fourth Floor P . O. Box 803 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803 1.0. No. 76080 (717) 232-9324 Attorneys for Defendant, Chrysler Corporation ...' DATE: ,July 2, 1998 . IJim Salava as well as Matthew Zielkie (previoualy identified witness) may be called as either fact witnesses or expert witnesses at the time of trial depending upon ,Plaintiff's case in chief. Defendant reserves the right to call either witness as an expert or as a fact witness at the time of trial. '. ~JUL 0 2 1998 IIAPItIRbUlW!SY:J I \LI/ill\ML(}\ l.l.l>tl\'16 1'11) GEORGE SULLENBERGER, JR., PlaJ:nt if f v. ' COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL LAW CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant (~ ~) ,'i 'I " NO. 97-5.328 ! I I, , ' , AMENDED E~HIBIT LIST Ql DEFENDANT. CHRYSLER CORPORATION , 1 " " I ,) .-;, 0-4. Cumberland Valley Motors service invoice dated January 27, 1995 together with all attached service records and documents. 0-5. Cumberland Valley Motors service invoice dated May 5, 1995 together with all attached service records and documente. 0-6. Cumberland Valley Motors service invoice dated August 18, 1995 together with all attached service records and documents. 0-7. Cumberland Valley Motors service invoice dated October 17, 1995 together with all attached service records and documents. 0-8. Cumberland Valley Motors service invoice dated June 7, 1996 together with all attached service records and documents. 0-9. Exerpts from Black Book showing retail and wholesale value of the subject vehicle. 0-10. Any and all tax records of Plaintiff, George Sullenberger as produced pursuant to Defendant's Notice to Produce at trial. , >..: ,... ". I., '.~ [-.: -"" .. .' .~ ~} ~ .' " ,~~ uf"." ;": ,"';:::,'" nl.,1 .,':::j l!:'l ';~. I.,...,;.. '.)1 ~.., '..; :!~ ~1:' ''.I 'il ;';. ,.. .'. ~ ! II J] , t:.:;;' .10. . , (I)n... f' "', ~'., "j () <r.) {) eJl , , " . I " " " " .J , , " " , " , i I ';1 II 'I " I' ,I ',' , , " , , " ,I' , , , addition, it can be served at the CT Corporation Systems, 1635 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. BACKGROUND 3. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that plaintiff obtained a 1995 Dodge Dakota that was manufactured and warranted by defendant bearing vehicle identification number 1B7KF26C1SS133961. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 3 of plaintiff's Complaint and the same are therefore denied. 4. Denied. It is denied that the price of the vehicle including the charges and fees enumerated in plaintiff's Complaint total more than $29,000.00. On the contrary, the price and the alleged charges and fees do not total more than the sum alleged. 5. Denied. It is denied that the vehicle cannot be utilized for the purposes intended by the plaintiff. It is further denied that defendant or its dealership performed ineffective repairs on the vehicle. It is denied that the vehicle is worthless. On the contrary, all repairs on the vehicle have been effective and the vehicle performs as intended. 6. Because plaintiff has failed to define the specifics of the alleged "several written warranties", after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge with regard to the averments contained in paragraph 6 of plaintiff'S Complaint and the same are therefore denied. 7. Denied. I t is denifld that the vehicle experienced non- conformities or conditions that were not corrected within the terms of the express written warranty issued by Chrysler. 8. Admitted in part; denied in part, It is admitted that Exhibit "B" is attached to plaintiff's Complaint and that such exhibit appears to be a repair order from November 10, 1994. Defendant denies the characterization of the service and the remaining avermento of paragraph 8. The document speaks for itself . 9. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Exhibit "C" is attached to plaintiff's Complaint and that such exhibit appears to be a repair order from February 14, 1995. Defendant denies the characterization of the service and the remaining averments of paragraph 9. The document speaks for itself . 10. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Exhibit "D" is attached to plaintiff's Complaint and that such exhibit appears to be a repair order from August 18, 1995. Defendant denies the c~aracterization of the service on that date and the remaining averments of paragraph 10. The document speaks for itself. 11. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Exhibit "E" is attached to plaintiff's Complaint and that such exhibit appears to be a repair order from October 17, 1995. Defendant denies the characterization of the service and the remaining averments of paragraph 11. The document speaks for itself . 12. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Exhibit "F" is attached to plaintiff's Complaint and that such exhibit appears to be a repair order from October 18, 1996. Defendant denies the characterization of the service and the remaining averments of paragraph 12. The document speaks for itself . 13. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Exhibit "G" is attached to plaintiff's Complaint and that such exhibit appears to be a repair order from June 13, 1996. Defendant denies the characterization of the service and the remaining averments of paragraph 13. The document speaks for itself . 14. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 14 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 15. Denied, It is denied that the vehicle has been subject to additional repair attempts. It is denied the vehicle continues to exhibit such conditions. COUNT I MAGNUSON-MOSS FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION IMPROVEMENT ACT 16. Defendant, Chrysler Corporation, hereby incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 15 of plaintiff's Complaint as though the same were set forth herein at length. 1'1. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without :information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the averments contained in paragraph 17 of plaintiff's Complaint and the same are therefnre denied. 18. Admitted. 19. Denied as stated. It is denied that the express written warranty states in total as alleged by the plaintiff in paragraph 19 of the Complaint. Defendant's express written warranty speaks for itself. 20. Denied. It is denied that defendant's authorized service facility has performed ineffective repairs. It is further denied that defendant has breached any warranty or is otherwise liable to the plaintiff as a result of any action or inaction on the part of answering defendant. 21. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 21 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. It is denied that answering defendant breached any warranty. It is further denied that any action or inaction on the part of answering defendant caused plaintiff any damages. 22. Admitted. 23. Denied. It is denied that plaintiff is entitled to , attorney fees. It is further denied that upon prevailing in this action that reasonable attorney fees are recoverable. On the contrary, any attorney fees awarded is within the discretion of the Court. WHEREFORE, defendant, Chrysler Corporation, respectfully demands judgment in ite favor and against the plaintiff together with costs. COUNT II UNIFORM CO~RCIAL CODI 24. Defendant, Chrysler Corporation, hereby incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 23 of plaintiff's Complaint as though the same were set forth herein at length. 25. Denied. It is denied that plaintiff's vehicle experienced any defects or nonconformities which constituted a breach of contractual and/or statutory obligations of the defendant. It is further denied that defen~ant breached any warranties either express or implied in law. On the contrary, defendant violated no such warranties or contractual and/or I I :1 statutory obligations. 26. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 26 of plaintiff's Complaint and the same is therefore denied. 27. Denied. It is denied that defendant was aware that plaintiff was relying upon defendant's alleged warranties, obligations, and/or representations with regard to the vehicle. On the contrary, defendant was not aware of any such alleged reliance. 28. Denied. It is denied that defendant was aware that plaintiff was relying upon defendant's alleged warranties, obligations, and/or representations with regard to the vehicle. On the contrary, defendant was not aware of any such alleged reliance. 29. Denied. It is denied that plaintiff has suffered any damages as a result of any action or inaction on the part of answering defendant. On the contrary, no such damages were incurred as a result of defendant's conduct. 30. Defendant hereby incorporates its answer to paragraph 29 of plaintiff's Complaint as though the same were set forth herein at length. WHEREFORE, defendant, Chrysler Corporation, respectfully demands judgment in its favor and against the plaintiff together with costs. COUNT III UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW 31. Defendant, Chrysler Corporation, hereby incorporates its answers to 'paragraphs 1 through 30 of plaintiff's Complaint as though the same were set forth herein at length. 32. Admitted. 33. Admitted. 34. Denied. It is denied that defendant has failed to comply with the terms of any written warranty issued by it. It is further denied that defendant has engaged in unfair methods of the competition or that any action or inaction on the part of the defendant caused or contributed to any allege damages of the plaintiff. 35. It is admitted the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law authorizes the court, in its discretion, to award up to three times the actual damages for violation of the Act. It is denied any violation thereof occurred. WHEREFORE, defendant, Chrysler Corporation, respectfully demands judgment .in its favor and against the plaintiff together with costs. NEW MATTIlR 36. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted against Chryslar.. 37. Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by the applicable disclaimers of warranty and limitations of damages provisions. 38. Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by his neglect, misuse, abuse, modification, and/or alteration of the vehicle, which is the subject of this litigation. 39. Plaintiff's claims are barr.ed and/or limited by his failure to mitigate damages, 40. If the plaintiff sustained any alleged injuries, damages, or losses, those injuries, damages, or losses were caused by persons and/or entities over whom answering defendant had no control and for whom answering defendant is not responsible. 41. Plaintiff's alleged claims of nonconformity do not substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the vehicle. 42. Plaintiff's claims are or may be barred by the applicable doctrine of laches, estoppel, or waiver. 43. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim for which any attorneys fees may be awarded. 44. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover treble damages. 45. Plaintiff's claims may be barred and/or limited by the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, Uniform Commercial Code, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. 38. Specifically denied, PlaintilTnever neglected. misused. ahused, modi lied or altered the suhjeet vehicle, 39, Denied, To the conlrary. Ihe Plaintill'hlls sOllght help fromnumeruus olher dealerships as well as from the National Center 1<11' Dispute Settlement, Chrysler's "non-partisan" arhitration unit. 10 nOllvail. In facI. none oflhe sell~help mellsures employed hy Plaintitl'has made an impact on reconciling this matter, 40. Specifically denied, Plaintilrasserts thatllll e1aims arising from the instant action related .0 Dclendant's hreaeh of its express written warranty and implied warranties at law. 41, Denied, As stated in the Complaint. Ihe non-conlormities in the instant action relate to anti-lock brakes. detective wheels. defective I'Olors. defective engine. defective solenoids, defective paint and driveahility concerns, Ives Bell, the "independent" NCDS inspector, veri lied that many of the above concerns substantially impair the use. value and salety oflhe subject vehicle, A true and corrcct copy of Mr. Bell's report is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A," 42. This paragraph is a conclusion of law and requires no response, By way of further answer, to the extent that this paragraph contains allegations of facts. the same arc specilically denied. 43. This paragraph is a conclusion of law. and requires no response. By way of further answer. to the extent that this paragraph contains allegations of facts. the same arc specilically denied. 44. This paragraph is a conclusion of law, and requires no response, By way of further answer, to the extent that this paragraph contains allegations of facts. the same arc specifically denied. V I 1 v~ t'" '"^ ,. 'I \,j.,i I 0/-. ,-", I......." , " ,,,J"',,,,;,'" If indeper4dent Vehicle J.r.spt:"~4V" .".~"".. .1: ~ '''' . ..":JECEIVED -5Uf71;e -I'I1.f.:s c"'/?)I'J.:~ ~'1fJ "&.> . 'I III..,: "';It~J/4.- ~ Zl~/,.~ .4/..".,. ,. ,lU"S;;#>~i/J d ' ~ 0". VII Q,()/p H.'ADs- -D-,o If~ ~:..s 'pJ€46/~ d ...,t," """. e ' clte" on. VII o .. Ill": f?I:v/, 1Z"N'~ (')N f2;~~,.e ~~ "r~ F~ ~ 1M"'" '-Ii-<- ~ve- a-"Y"~,j- tI.M~ '"7.:M//"'~ a... 4",,1. one NO , , " " , I ~ !' ., I ~ 'I 'I ~ , \t , " " , I' " , ,. " , I', 4. The purchase price of the vehicle, including registration charges, document fees, sales tax, finance and bank charges but, excludin9 other collateral charges not specified, yet defined by the Magnusson-Moss Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, totaled more than $29,000.00. A true and correct copy of the Sales Agreement is attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked as Exhibit "A." 5. plaintiff avers that as a result of the ineffective repair attempts made by Defendant and its authorized dedler, the vehicle cannot be used for the purposes intended by Plaintiff at the time of acquisition; as such, the vehicle ie worthless. 6. In consideration for the purchase of the above vehicle, Defendant issued to Plaintiff several wr.i.tten warranties, including a three (3) year or thirty-six thousand (36,000) mile warranty, as well as other standard warranties fully outlined ln the warranty booklet, delivered at time of sale. 7. Plaintiff has delivered the non-conforming vehicle to an authorized service and repair facility of the manufacturer on numerous occasions. After a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer was unable to repair the non-conformities. 8. The first warranty repair attempt is believed to have occurred on or before November 10, 1994, when the vehicle's odometer showed 31 miles. On that date, repair attempts were made to the vehicle's deflector. A true and correct copy of the r~pair invoice is attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked Exhibit liB." 9. The second warranty repair attempt is believed to have occurred on or before February 14, 1995. On that date, the paint job on the vehicle had streaks in it, and repair attempts were made. A true and correct copy of the repair invoice is attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked Exhibi t "C." 10. The third warranty repair attempt is believed to have occurred on or before August 18, 1995, when the vehicle's odometer showed 15,148 miles. On that date, the vehicle was brought in due to a recall notice for the steering column. At this time, the oil and filter on the vehicle was changed. A true and correct copy of the repair invoice is attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked Exhibit "D." 11. The fourth warranty repair attempt is believed to have occurred on or before October 17, 1995, when the vehicle's odometer showed 18,908 miles. On that date, repair attempts were made to the vehicle's defective engine. The truck was making a cranking type noise while attempting to start the engine, and the truck would not start. Repair attempts were made to the vehicle's defective solenoid fuel shutoff valve. A true and correct copy of the repair invoice is attached hereto, made a part hereof and vehicle constitute a breach of contractual and statutory obligations of Defendant" including but not limited to the following I a. Express Warranty I b. Implied warranty Of Merchantabili ty; and c. Implied Warranty Of Fitness For A Particular Purpose. 26. The purposes for which Plaintiff purchased this vehicle incll~de but are not limi ted to their personal, family and household use. 27. At the time of this purchase and at all times subsequent thereto, Plaintiff has justifiably relied upon Defendant I S express warranties and implied warranties of fitness for a, particular purpose and implied warranties of merchantability. 28. At the time of the purchase and at all times subsequent thereto, Defendant was aware Plaintiff was relying upon Defendant's express and implied warranties, obligations, and representations with regard to the subject vehicle. 29. Plaintiff has incurred damages as a direct and proximate result of the breach and failure of Defendant to honor its exprese and implied warranties. 30. Such damages include, but are not limited to, the purchase price of the vehicle plus all collateral charges, M 1 11 91 A IIH...'t1M,11 ,,_.._,DD(1-~.(., !' (j,"l)1i~1 ....1,1I~,11 ~ 1~llNlJ n.- ,~ . ~ILj 1 u/\-J/&(T.:l " n nQ, "'UIf'MrL r~lflfr.:""r. 'I IN,I H1,MI iOh"ltlllll~.INI t,llFMMII __r1CCUil -(u.nJ.inq___ 1.01'l/IIU,",'I"1 () ; ~ ~iim'TT'-.-----' !~-__YJ.'Lr:;Il~Jlfl, l<rJ. 'NOli. .. A COI'lJfiUIA!illl, IJlIIIII Illl\H YtllUI ~.I"II' d l', II IHI,f WllllJI,I~>hlJll)"'!1 IIN.AtII~.It.I.IJMM(JII JCIINI It N"NI~ '0'.1111111" ,III (II ~>I'H\d"t 111'01111' . [~I IfJNOr:""II)l"IJM l/WNI.II, "!lII,tJl', '" _ l,IJlNMW}I./WNUlj NOlf' If Hlf \l'l!tUCl"tSlJllNl.IIA~;tll.c:ltrt;" IIU'illlIJU" '1''1' "' iiAIi-'N:fJtllii"-- "HIU~lIU . I 1/ - ~ -"1-1-.-_ IN' .. nor. Iliijlw."ill,.,.X'-- x ''''U/I'1'1.'' uU), 'cu..,..,url'_...I,; 1:"'I~iIA" nll..1 ----,.---- ~;I^ll L:'lol..;.. . .I11.loIl1l...1 1'111" ilNj Ill'illl'I.1 F'A 17~;{S_ IlIiJl"'~. II till 1l10Ulllll.lllt;lllll, rWl!IIAX ..~ I', [.,., N~llJAl MIU!Alil: nil I U'fi' Ill)M fjl)C)MlllllllI AllU".I' III fl "I'A~if)mil)IIIU11IIAN\;AllltltAIIIINIHH(jIIMH!A' IIMt ~ "'tLfAfjl'~ UNIHIOWN J ~ WARNING AN INAt..ClJllAlE OOOMI':IIIl ~:lTAII'MI t/l "',... MM..' ,,)(1 I tAIIII: rClIIll...MAnrB 10 YllIH' '" IlIAWiFfflfl: PUlHilIA/a IIll-4IJl/A lif 1111 "'1111 'll \/"'10/' 111M U'IM,\IIUN "'Nll un.1 SAVltln~i '\1; I III IflU IIN"'NI!i IIlf:rlMMtlll "U- IIlN III ,\lIl1JI Il/~I IIWN' Ilr'" III nr 01 Ilf U AliI lJ lJWNllllittl~III)III:ifllllll'IItI'mOlII!iI^,1 , If IUIM,I\'llullt:MU,t:llMIH If ...MI""....U"IlIIMMV. 11l""MI,IIIIIUAllINti I ,/ Mill Mil il'Vlll utI,lIlltJ , " I" [\'1 ,..~ ';.t'!U.. I .' ....;.p\' .f",,;. II " 'I , ,( 1,lj" ,,'t, . "1' 'I I . \ ," ":.""'."; ~r.,{ 1','f'I'if,"'", . . ,~., Ii ,: '\ ,.' , l' .' . ~.~,.: J 3- U-Num , 10_011II IITlE .-.!J,'_____ 'I I.N ru , ii'" ",,,,,...,, I nIT IIUilIAlf ...."tHIII'''IIIII''1 ,"jillllrllJ'\/l ,'" I NtlIIlN,UII(:~r~J <4 !jJllHr ."lIJIIINlllltllfn ';1'111 clrv ~;rMr III' llti' ~; ,...11 'U' ~I'~ MAKl (JI' "IIIIClI VIr. Mllllll 'rlllll ~. OOcJY.T';'~.I;irM-~ IJlI~i.II<.I~-n_'_. 'loI,loIIIIO/jIO' Y'HIt:l-t~-r:.Tw;;o-. 1',1.111 I -';'lll)fl I,~~;b~!~;'-'~__ ''''''j~;f:fllilll LJ lA)I'1 i"~II(I',jI,1 ) ;;:1!,1011I1 I.' ~:~ti~;1I '-_J 1111~\!"II_J ~>I,AIINliLAI'''''UIV ~i;Y-iIMJfl(O,r~:n('i-I-I;I.~ I 1'111 IIHIII~' ~-II'~OIl I' IlfITO-r IIMIl'>1l /,111,1.111111 ~,'> .' IIL,H I I llWI 11 II ')', '011 -(;;;filAnU_ - -(.1'0'1' [ Iii" /MlIlIlll"Il.fl'I'IIO I 1'0'1' I 1"11 1.1.I)N~,____._._... ' . _, ,MI'IIVII~I 'JtJ _ ' AIJlflMAllr., "I-IYI'. "I j,r, 1"',llitlIPI/lIHllfll I I'" I INO _rnIlW!MI'j',UJf!.. __.~.. ..J; ~: ..L~ ! <)llilIMI)(),1 " f.IIA~i~,I~,Mlfl ,. 3' rlll!JYMAI<" ~?:'l.Ai11:\~~:.'~ '~"'''''-7'''-':;7~ n,brF.ciI'..n~ il r~..fJ..iOf.'iI-i'I.:':"i'Rr l1\'flti"\";. ,._,':, ',.. ',~ UN' I.[)EiiW'T:'if:M~I' iI ,=,."",'>";'1',.,,,,, I ' ''''-'_''_-''_''''"'1.,..,- ~'iJi " , .~:~~n:~!~~I.~~~~~_liHO!j~i UJMlmIAfI' Jtj WI. _ .~~._~J.~;~l~!j~.~:~_~~..m~,\I.II~N W.I_'lAIIN(, [:l~nF-l'lillPHUf) 1011"'1 MlIl\\llfltll',"IIIILl,-u:;r.IH [J~:1l"r:l~l.~;'U)I'llll: t) " JRANr'II"f.1l ,t!: --~_._~- lNCf.lA!i( III /I IUPlAC[MtNT HI /I JOTALI'I'JO INJO 11I1/ltJel ~O",Ch<<Jc tI 'htls.ArTlUllll''' ti.1'IlAt-.lMI;f111' 1111 \d,",',I' I',' 1'11,1'1 Ml (~J lltAt-.l'irEn A flll'l ~, I '''I "I "r 1.\ ~II l-llftAN~i,l1 U'1I1 HI WIU, Of "AIR: 1':-) :,'I~,~t;',~"I" "All. "/1 "N:.lMEN' or i~. 'm' ~"::;~\!:')~~;;'tll .5.!Ii.'(oJ>>~Y\ \1,/ 1.:-1'11/1 . -.. ~-_._--- rlllhr (-J',I()IfN [ JIMrN:ro o NEvt:IHIF.C I> llosr IN MAtll :- __Mo~II~_'1 '" 10 15': ___NOTE JP _"Nr:..V~!l 'U-CrIVl [)'~h'oc:~,y~_c1l('c:.kll~~~I~k:an~ ~!..~'!.l~!Jre FOl'~~ InANt;flll(f~fllf!l)M 11'1/1/0\ IV1N , (----4t,P~ 1 Y,:) I S_:,()J ---- ---:-m~f-l-\,x..~~~.LR}S.~~l.LlJ.~" ;~~7r'\!~I~lfMIi rl,',,~::';~I:jH/l\It':J~. IW,II~)~ :,IGNllt;'I( 7 ~.J1Ivlr;' ~ ----. J:, A hIm" JO~IPlCANT~ ~~_~~n~~~~~ll -;t~(7"':' ~ ____ ___ :"'~._' __ ~Pd_ C~ Jj 1'", UN'" I~":V ","C1M -. ~ 1'<~.cvH',.;R; CN "''''I~''~''''~ D OR~J 107 _ '1AI~JD,_ a,9,/ _ OM' lj-J.'lS -- 1','"m,..A(.IN Mil rClliNTNO II;Enmy JHATotlMIJN'HJ~.-Tlt(. III\( ";0 - VrAJl!Jitl I")) ('(t Sp~ I ('l.r QQQ')l' ~("\ I ltA"l 1.111 I./(I II IIJ IJI1rH~ \1111I fill VI i:'h I r .1~;ltl~iillllll ^~r: -- __ '~M; _4 \lA\.L'__.__~. ~, :~~~~ l~i~,I}'II IIM"'llIAll( lilljf~.II!AJIIII' I" 1111 1\1111"1 /li1'1"..."r, IN 1~;~;tHNClAtiIN':,".N^"nU TrII"ItUNIiNO t(!MI'! IA~jl.1 Willi 1111 AI'I'11l AIIII I'fl' "1',11""; II' 1111 VI !IIII ,_ "lllll "NUIII t'^HIMI III /if 'jUI Alllltl!, I/WI ACIl.NOWlIUGIi UlAI I/W MAY LOSE MY/UIJlt UPlIlAIINti I'JIIVHtGIISj 011 VlIlICIi HUilS,"AUUNI!iI'UII I III IN lAIN fiNANCIAl H 5 ON' ILllY ON 1111 COHAlN1I.Y;Il~ijI5nRID VUIICU JOlt rilE PUliDO Of I1flil~lll^,rON '/Wf fUllUlfR ACNNOWUUUf 1IIAT II Wi MAY U SIID.nC' 10 A flNI NUr I.llCIIDINO 16,000 "file IMPflfSONMIN'ro.:Nor MURI fIlAN IWU (11 nAil') rlln ANY fill SI ~HArEMi~J HIAI IIWf MAKI ON "liS fORM. ANOI/WI CI "iffY 'HAl '/WII1AVII.IlAMINID AND SIONID ,1 "" 'OHM MUll I'" COMPU rloN, ANO fI'Af,I' AN tXIMI'IIIlN '"UM l'AV~nNJ OF !IItI.lS 'AJIC IS ClAIMIU.I AM/W~ ARt AumORIllD 10 ClAIM J"'!i IJlCIMPJlON, I/WI ,I ' rlltHJ )o~ >t~ J , ' " I', ,'1J (' jd, 'UllltlEM Clllmy mAl All sl""IM'NTSftIRI1N AIlII'IUIi "NOCORAler ANOMAKI APPLICATION '.\ ' J'bJ:'!l!Ii.llL........."t',_Mll_ "'-.I!^"-v _, "^"_I t 1- 10/1""""<'''0' "'U:'::(,f"'_VI"'C",~IS~RIl"U'N-.!!~J> . ... .,- .',1 ,. \ '" '1(,1MIlf3' , INfi 11)\1 f:i,..ltllll/! 1:;1(,101111 r,oflNfR I IUNSF. NUMnfA 'I' ." '" 'l'ry'''N~'.!.~'~'~ --~, -lv '- '< . - PLAINTIFF'S 7'iC . iit;;"j.~ll'r,'I"'Oln ,P-ubllj; ~Lj! ,"i'.' ,-oil ',Ii,I.m 1M/NIHil III AI"11l IlIllll',lf,NI MOI'II 'i~;~1,r,*~p\c~mb.rlahd Count.;. l '{.:I,~t __ __ _.., , EXHIBIT '4 f:! ,.,'. ..~:h "IIIHIINI Nil I ~ '~. "vn!' L1 4 ',~. ,,' ,.~~o!~.~,tf':I~'''.'.!'~:I' .". "TO>' "".."" 'I ", ,'.., , III A:,ONFOfl flfl'l. A( [__n.NJ o I~~~~~Y~U';Y'~~~NT t I~, , "tl"~~l'~~"'~' ., " to ," ,""" 'to . ~ ~y.lI.. , ' I I_f\ \'1J "'\,': I".,. '," ,t 1 ',j, .' ,0" I' ~,~ J< "..'..:' ,..... .....11{,{ ,", "'''.>i~~l'WX:YJa..':-:;?;.':' 19 1.'..')IJlNO A(,l NI "lfIJI/MAIKIN s . .~E GRAY'S AUTO BODY SPE(IALlST 2-1-Gettysburg.plke Mechllnlcstmrg,-PA-f1055 .(-1H}-19().9111 :r ,J"'; '1J.......'..--"'4 ~ ~ ,,^:-~.J \ ....~.,...-,.. ,f.. / ,""':' ,?~d ~""f~J (.J? I'JI ..,,,..,,, ESTIMATE OF "EPAIRS Onlo J ,I, 19 ~r ,,'7 1m, /../."~"' '" .r I lke ~J,(I.,.I~.t' 'VeM I, ' lono.l' ,~. / " J... ,....,.-.~^l.Jd'l'5!J--1"~,...~v.....* ."'\:~- ,..r:::.' -..)-..If2) ~ Mndct'..../.1 ~.'" ",. , [ ,...."';.J " I '\ C11V ~~ ..,.~ ~ .4 N"lIlh", JA.'7r~~:1!)/!1JP41("dY S'y'o . , , - , o. ^djIJ51~ - - nl" no. "./11 \ _'h. . -- ll\lJOfIf po, plllce n " ESTIMATE OF 1ll;I'Alft CO$U; \ PAINr "ArtiS NI:1 , 111I5 SUDLEr . "~.-1.Ic\ eJ .Ii.. ~ , ~ (.:.'; _.t.l ;' ~ ,-('J P".'~'." 3- ~ 0 , ~! ...J!,......~" · r;:',..d- ~,'.- ~-' .-'f'.f ("~,..."."........... /. .7 ',I ' "'.... ,I. .s- , ". &-/. ",,fA' .,l., ." ...5!~.4..-. .F. S- ol. ~:'...-J D I i 0 , I ) ~\\ I ' , , .!.( . ..~.t ~ ,fo....!.t ..? ,;,,- ,I. c1"' , I 1, , ..-( " ,~Jp~.:,' ./3'.~ f .~~" .', S' /. 0 ,.. L ;"'. ,.,' .~...w-. ,? 5' J. ~. r ~ " : I , .~ ....-:-.? ..,f~/'''''''''"'L.J''' --? ;1~....t,~ v~ .,. '/r-:?............A..... L - -. /.,')5 ..p , /; ,....\..I.....,.;r. " "-:''P''.'''' --L _If?_ ., " " - , . ~, - - - - - - - --;;:?/~ , - ~ /.v",,< /..._~;.....,.,d'"'\. ~,...~,~~ ;(.1- ',,*'JII...;! '. .'.",'~ I ,~." .. ..' fE', ~JJ';'; ~~I,"',r1> -',- 4~~..,,/ " " ,j '. I '. I" .i ,"~\)'i. ~I\ "l/;i l<:':' "', ....... ." .:.'. "ro;...? --:i?o!A ~.r" "I;",,,~r f~~-'~"~:" , , , ',,,f':' /,.1,' . - .....'.. .,:; " ~~ - l- I " " - . r.. . 1 " , , . " . , I", . , . " " r' -,.... " , ' I , - --'- . " , , , ; - I . , " I - '1 , , - - { Total \ /S'. ~ f. S' J?'S ",/1) - S ESflMATE IS OASEO'ON ou;1INSPECflON AND DOES NOT COVER ADDITIONAL PAnTS .. ..?S.s: LAuon WltfCH MAV OE AEUUlnr.o AFTER HIE wont< HAS OEf.N SlAnTED AF'E'~ lllE l^OOn~ ,inS fllll S .. AM. HAS STAnfEO. WORN Oft OAMAO~() '"'AnTS WinCH .-HE NOl EVIDENT ON FlrlST tN. s",i. 'CTlON MAY lie Vlscoveneo' NATUlIAlL y ,tI'S EsrlM" fE CANNOT COVEn SUetl CON. PAINT tins. (II S S .. GI!NCII!S ,tAftTS PA~CES SUOJECf TO CtfAHOE Wl1"OUT NOllCE. nus ESflM"'E IS IIMMEUlA lE M:CfP "Net: ; PMl rs ISt~IJI('CIIO Invoh;e) , . .' I ..2S"f(' 80 i In thl..... th.. OIlImalO I. ulld "' I work o,d" Ind Ilgntd 10' rAINlIMAlEnlALS ,.",,,, S eomp""on or work don'"t'lf.crory. the,. will be no ,lCour..' ~7S 11.; Not Cltpon.lb.. for. theft or wlnd.lllm whll. 0.1 the ...mlltl. SUOLfT ITEMS, ...,,,. S Thlro will be IImltod'gu""n'" ...lIbor".... duo. . ...... .....In., TOWINO/g rOnAGfE S ,'" I " /1.1d .K:l Eftlml" good for 30 d.yt or Plrtt prle.lnc'..... PLAINTIFF'S un TorAl .1" . S " X J EXHIBIT iAlESTAX . 71 I~t/ , Oats,S:omplatlon C t"AN L ."",,,. ,,,-,.,,, '" .." "",,,I., /o/1e Ioy' n,,,,,,,.... '- -' " ll&.:CI\!lU No Inlu .nce C Home PhO!!2,. . "",,""i' -:.: Wurk PholtQ I' ,. ( ~ ~- Ii 300 2 6970875 ACCENT FUNDING GEORGE SULLENBERGER JR 4520 VALLY ROAD ENOLA PA 17025 IIOME: 697-0875 BUS: 732-7620 *INVOICE* o A AK /MO PAGE 1 SERVICE ADVISOR: VIN- WIIITE DEL DATE 1B7K'26C1SS1JJ961 PROMISED PO NO. 95 DODG PIIOD.DATE r{"CVM CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS 6714/20 Carlisle Pike ,', Mochanlcsburg, PA 17066 BMW/Suboru (7171697-9462 Dodge/SholbV (7171 697-9460 3 3 J LICENSE MILEAGE IN/ OUT RATE 05NOV94 11,0. OPENED 17: 00 07JUN96 OPTIONS: S'l'K: 16662 RN:4SP_AUTO l)'l'AX 48.00 C II DLR:OTIIER ENG:5.9L DSI EXEMPT 121527622 2rNO CSC 1 o :35 07JUN96 1 :14 1JJUN96 !Jl!E OPCODE TECII TYPE HOUIlS LIST A CUSTOMER S'l'A'l'ES 'l'IIE AUS AND BRAKE LIGHT IS ON AND THERE IS A SCREECIIING NOISE FROM TilE LEFT FRONT WHEEL AREA 08191506 SENSOR, ANTI-LOCK DRAKE-Replace (A) 407 J.G.M. LIC#: 8071 WD93 0.30 1 4485165 SENSOR-DRAKE RIl ANTI-LOCK FC: PART#: COUNT: CLAIM 'l'YPE: AUTH CODE: READY 08191561 Diagnostic Procedure Manual allo~>,ance 436 S.B.L. LIC#: 4270 WD93 0.80 08902701 WIRING HARNESS, ANTI LOCK BRAKES-Test and replace (A) 407 J.G.M. LIC#: 8071 WD93 0.50 1 56038005 WIRING-RWAL SENSOR JUMPER 05905092 REAR WHEEL CYLINDERS-Replace (TSB #05-002-96) 407 J.G.M. LIC#: 8071 WD93 1.10 2 4761603 CYLINDER-WHEEL CYL 1 4318080 DRK/FLUID-MOPAR-12 OZ 1 4549623 CLEANER-BRAKE PARTS -13 OZ. 22501511 OIL SEAL, REAR WHEEL BEARING-Replace (B) 407 J.G.M. LIC#: 8071 WD93 0.80 1 3496557 SEAL-RR WIlL BRG OIL FC: X2 PART!: COUNT: CLAIM TYPE: AUTH CODE: BR13 REPLAC FRONT PADS AND ROTORS \ Jl1ll1JIB STATEMENT OF DISCLAIMER ltw IulolV W.'.l4'1lllWlllllulll .., 01 ... ...,.'.11111 wi,,, '....." .. Ihlu" ","'.111m/1lllml. Ttw 50111/ herlb., 'lpI...t., dlu,'.lml .., "'",.,.... _lhIt "p"" or In'I/II". Incluojl.'O In, I,"plled "'tlI""'ll ,,' "ltlch..,..,blluy Of "".... 161' . ,..lleUl. ,....<M.. S.II., nellher ......,.. ,.Of 1"",.,1", en., IIN' ~I.on I' H'''''"' fot II <all., ""dUll In COI"..Cllo" ,,1111 ".. .... of I"'" Illr"/III"" I PLAlNTlFF'8 EXHIBIT j:' CUSTOMER COpy ctJ!t llM(' srGNAfUn NET TOTAL (N/C). (N/C) (N/C) (N/C) (N/C) (N/Cl (N/C (N/C) (N/C) (N/C) (N/C) DISCRIPTION L.ADOR AMOUNT PARTS AMOUNT OAS, O'L. LU8E BURLET AMOUNT MISC. CHARGES TOTAL CHARGES LESS INsunAN"CE SAlES TAX PLEASE PAY TtflS AMOUN"f TOTALI 6 '.'. ! ''0 .' , ,- ~ 6970875 , 308 Z ACCENT FUNDING GEORGE SULLENBERGER JR 4520 VALLY ROAD ENOLA PA 17025 HOME: 697-0875 BUS: 732-7620 *INVOICE* COLOR PAGE 1 SERVICE ADVISOR: VIN u DEL DA TE PROD, DATE WARR, EXP. PROMISED PO NO, REAOY , 7: 00 07JUN96 OPTIONS: STK: 16662 RN:4GP_AUTO l)TAX 4 .0 DLR:afHER ENG:5.9L DSI EXEMPT #21527622 2TNO CSC 07:35 0 9 13J 96 LINE OPCODE TECH TYPE HOURS A CUSTOMER STATES THE ASS AND BRAKE LIGHT IS ON AND '!'HERE SCREECHING NOISE FROM THE LEFT FRONT WHEEL AREA 08191506 SENSOR, ANTI-LOCK BRAKE-Replace (A) 407 J.G.M. LIC/: 8071 WD93 0.30 1 4485165 SENSOR-BRAKE RR ANTI-LOCK FC: PAR'r#: COUNT: ClAIM TYPE: AUTH CODE: 08191561 Diagnostic Procedure Manual allowance 436 S.B.L. LIC/: 4270 WD93 0.80 08902701 WIRING HARNESS, ANTI LOCK BRAKES-Test and replace (A) 407 J.G.M. LIC/: 8071 WD93 0.50 1 56038005 WIRING-RWAL SENSOR JUMPER 05905092 REAR WHEEL CYLINDERS-Replace (TSB 105-002-96) 407 J.G.M. LIC/: 8071 WD93 1.10 2 4761603 CYLINDER-WHEEL CYL 1 4318080 BRK/FLUID-MOPAR-12 OZ 1 4549623 CLEANER-BRAKE PARTS -13 OZ. 22501511 OIL SEAL, REAR WHEEL BEARING-Replace (B) 407 J.G.M. LIC/: 8071 WD93 0.80 1 3496557 SEAL-RR WHL BRG OIL Fe: X2 PART/: COUNT: CLAIM TYPE: AlTfH CODE: 3 'J.lll- STATEMENT 0' DISCLAIMIR TN 'MI.,'I ".,Int., ._lilUC.. .., .1 IN """'lnllel With '.....1 I. IN .... II INt IItm1lleml, TN s.n., Mr"" .."",,, ..oIam. Ill' WI".",I.. eil,.., I."'" or Im~jed, iMludl"f Wly implied .....".",., or mlf."lent....II'\I II PIt"... I. . ,.1I.~. IMJl'IIOH, !J.eU., AII'I'I<< ..-urn.. nOf IIlJI"OIln. ."., .IMI .....,,"" '0 ...um. 1_ i, ''''1 Neb,'II., In cO......cllnn ""lIn I.... .1IIt .r IN. 11.,"",,11'1' PLAINTIFF'S , EXHIBIT --.fL_ cu!.rOM(R !lIONAfURI ri"OIM CUMBERLAND VALLEY MOTORS 6714/20 CerUal, Plk, Mechenlclburg, PA 17066 BMW/Subaru 17171 697.9462 Dodge/Shelby 17171 697.9460 LIC~NSE ML~AG I IOU RATE PAYMENT LIST IS A NET OIlCRI"ION LABOR AM{\UNT 'ARTS . MOUNT GAS. OIL, LUll( SUBLIT AMOUNT Mise CHARGES TOTAL CHAROII US8 INSURANCE SALES TAX 'UASI PAY THII AMOUNT IIIV.DA I TOTAL (N/C) (N/C) (N/C) (N/C) (N/C) (N/C) (N/C) (N/Cl (N/C (N/Cl (N/C TOT ALa i' " ~. ~ I ~'O .,- ~ , , to. e,I r,: ~ .l <": .- ::: ~Q (,:- =I.:t , . ...,.:, IJ. : ~~:. 1:1... I)" ~ l;:.i - ff'\ ~. ,1\ ' .. IX:::> ro L_\'." '''' l' {J:t.l, 0- I."'; ~ .... ~ '.JII'[j f~ .~ l.'ltJ.- ~ '~ " ~ :;; -, ~ -) 0 ~~<<: " , ' " ",I commission Warranty ImDroV'ement~', the Pennsylvania Uniform I Commercial Code and the !:!Wnsvlvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. 4. During the Pre-trial Conference, Defendant's counsel expressed Chrysler Corporation's position that this matter should not proceed to trial, however, should proceed before an arbitration board based on the maximum amount in controversy in this case. 5. Although Defendant's counsel perhaps did not specifically raise the additional issue of uncompleted discovery, Defendants also respectfully request this Honorable Court remove this matter from the July, 1998 trial list to permit the parties additional time to complete discovery as Defendant has several outstanding issues through discovery which it must resolve prior to trial to permit a fair day in Court. 6. It is undisputed that the cost of the vehicle in question did not exceed approximately $29,308.00. 7. It is also undisputed that under any scenario whereby the Defendants are found liable and a verdict or decision is returned in favor of the Plaintiff, that the Plaintiff must return the vehicle if a repurchase is in order and is granted by the Court. ~, Williamson v. Chrvsler CorDoration, United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, May 6, 1997, 173 F.R.D. 131 (E.D. Pa. 1997); Shimskv v. Ford Motor -2- Comcanv, 170 F.R.D. 125 (E.D. Fa. 1997) attachl!ld respectively as Exhibits "A" and "B". ~. A review of the appropria:e automobile dealer's book regarding fair market values of domestic vehicles r.eveals that the fair market value or average retail value of the vehicle in question in this case is approximately $18,200.00. (Please see the attached excerpt from the Red Book attached and identified as Defendant's Exhibit "C"). 9. In cases such as this, where the Plaintiff is awarded a repurchase of the vehicl.e, the manufacturer may also deduct a reasonable allowance for usage of the vehicle which can equal ten percent (10%) of the vehicle's purchase price or in this case, approximately $2,900.00. See, Pennsylvania Automobile Lemon Law as codified at Title 28, ~ 1955. 10. When evaluating damages in this case, the Court must take the purchase price of the vehicle or $29,308.00 and deduct the book value as presented above, as well as a reasonable allowance for usage of the vehicle, which would total $20,100.00, as the measure of damages. In this case, the amount would total $8,208.00. 11. Even if the ,Court were to treble the amount of the maximum award, the same would not exceed the applicable $25,000;00 arbitration limits. 12. An award could be given to the Plaintiff whereby, under a breach of warranty claim, Defendant, Chrysler Corporation -3- would be required to make the plaintiff whole. The measure of damages under such a scenario is equal to the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have been if they had been as warranted. 13 P. S. ~ 2714 (b) . 13. The case law in Pennsylvania is absolutely consistent that the only measure of damages for breach of warranty for the sale of goods is the difference between the value "as is" and "as warranted." AM PM Franchise Association v. Atlantic Richfield ComDa~y, 584 A.2d 915, 920 Pa. 1990, Cober v. Corle, 610 A.2d 1036, 1040-41 (Pa. Super. 1992), K & C. Inc. v. Westinqhouse fLlectric CorD., 263 A.2d 390, 394 Pa. 1970. 14. The purchase price is not a relevant factor in the measure of damages under this scenario. Natalie Brothers Towinq Service. Inc. v. Murrav Ford. Inc., 41 D. & C.3d 224, 226 (1994). 15. Plaintiff's Complaint and central theory is that the vehicle suffers from a defective transmission and/or engine which by any stretch and/or measure of damages, even if trebled, could not exceed the applicable arbitration limits if Chrysler were required to pay the costs of a new transmission or new engine for this vehicle under the applicable law. 16. Finally, Defendant has not yet been afforded the opportu~ity to inspect Plaintiff's truck. 17. In addition, through discovery, Defendant has asked for each and every repair invoice, and in fact, Plaintiff's -4- WII,J.IAMSON v, CllltYS..t:1t COltl', 1:11 1,:11. ..11) 1,11.1), I.U 11'.,1)..... 1"1) I\l'rul' IIIl'u,l, ir n"lhill~ dst', rnu!,l bt~ dl'c1Ul'l- SlIu'cy WI....IAMSON ,'<I. 7:\ I'.S.! :!(ll-l..l""1 v. cllltYS..t:1t COIl1'OItATION, Civil Ad!"n Nu, 9f>-r~l2I. lInl,",<I Sllill'H llihlrid Cuur~ KIl. l'..nnHylvllnlo, MllY Ii, H)'j7. l'urch....cr of motor vchkl" brought <11- vcnllty IIcUon undor sll1te lemun IlIw IlIld alleged that dam"K".s exceeded jurl1<dlcUonw minimum of $5,000.01. The Dilltrlct Court, Dalzell, J., hold th"t: (\) murket vwue of vehicle had t.o be dedocted rrom purchlll;e price In order t.o ...,ccrtuln amount in "m\.rO- ve1'1lY; (2) rcllSon"ble "ttomey r""s could nev- er exceed economic 10"'; "nd (3) h...,ed on base figure cwculaUon or $6,967, IlIllount in con\.rOverHY could no~ to " legal ccrollnty, approach jllrh\dir.th'Jnal minimum. Di5mlHHed ror lack of HolJject-mot,",r jur- IIldicUon. the ACM rI.' motions Bradshaw- 'J crant.ed. rar pretr\al I. Fedoral Courts e>354, 359 JurlHdicUonal "m'lOnt thllt ploinUrf "lieg- es in divct8ity action controlK unlcM defen- dant shOWl! to " lel('o1I certainty that the claim is inadequate; however, district court is not bound by complaint', concloMory wleKoUons IIld mllY look throuRh alleKaUons t.o see ir plalnUrr hl1M Muppo,,",d them by compewnt , proor by II preponderance of the evidence, 2. Federal Courts ~:WO,I Calculation or amount in controversy to dewnnine wbether jurlsdlctiomu minimum ill met in diversity ocUon by mot.or vehicle pur- eha.'\cr under Htalc lemon law requires that IIIIlrket v"lu(' of vehicle be deducted from purtha.'H~ price, whr.re value L'i readily a.~cer. t.a1nable ani I purchlL.'ier would have to Murren- der car in order t.o get purch..,,, price back der lemon low; market value or vehicle can be Ill<ertaincd b....,cl un affidavit or quwified <!ivi<luoJ wbo clln credibly wHUfy .., t.o vehi- e's present value, nnd value of vehicle for Il1lit . joint the coM01- mvera is . cerUllca- he entry or . As we nfllNt in IIr:rrrr'l v UU'VNlI" Motor I}l\! No 9'1--' '\24, III'Hl WI. lK1276, at " n i 3, Fcderlll COUlU e>:13H In l'ILkulutill~ UJlIl)unl in ('tmtrovl'rny to dell'nllille whetlll'r jurlH<lIctionlll milllmum L. met in divl'rfiily lu'U"n hU$ed on molor vl'hi. ch! lemon law, rewlIInllble attorney ft'Cli cun not exceed amount th"t ",0101 ,",,",nUwly be rcclJvcn!d; 1)0 rcu,<\onublt! pernon would Kpcnd the equivwent "mount to vindlcoW " IlUrely economic IlJl'~H, llnd there mu~t be some ra. Uon,,1 reloUonBhlp between amount or eco- nomic 10"' IlIld expenditures exhausted lty- ing t.o rl'Coup that 10", 4, .'ederal Courta ~:WO.I Amount in con\.rOve1'1lY could no~ t.o l1 legal certlllnty, approach jurlodlcUonw mini- mum for dive1'1llty ...Uon mude under sll1te motor vehicle lemon low, IlIld thus, court did not hove subject.m"tter jur\.~lcUon over clwm, where b..", recovery ftgure of the ve- hicle, purehaHe price minus murket vwue or vehicle mlllus deduction ror use of vehicle prior to fin;t repair, WIL'i $6,967, as even lrebllng that nl!\lre pursuant t.o sllituw would increase base to $20,~)()1, and reasonable al- t.orney reeM would never exceed $29,098. 73 I'.S. ~ 201-1 et seq. Crulg Thor Kimmel, Blue Bell, I'A, ror I'lolnUrr. James W. Stevens, M....hwl, Dennehey, W urner, Coleman IlIld Goggin, Philudelphll1, PA. for DcfendanL MEMORANDUM DAL"'ELL. District Judge, We ure here presented with the quesUon whether we hl1ve diversity jurilldicUon over the subJect matter or plwnurrs lemon I"w action. The pll1inUff, Stacey Williurnson, med thill lemon law ca..e on July 16, 19!16, alleging that the damages t.o which she ill enUUcd in this diveMlity c..,e exceeded lhe then-jurl1<dicUon- oj mmlmum of $I',o,OOO.O\,' Specifically, WII. IEUPa May 10. 1996). "Kimmet" Sltvennlln. P l. aUegu, In every lemon law complaint thai DEFENDANT'8 I,~, 1:12 1'1:1 n:lllmAL IttlU:S m:('ISIO/llS IiIHlUilJIl clmtcnds lilllt hl'r bn'lldl tlf Wt~rrHn- ty chum l~lluul;o; $:l,I,U~tI.HO, whkh, WUh:unSIJII fLtKUl'K, clJUlcl tit' lrt'hll'll IIndt'r the Pl'tHlsyl- vanta UnftLir 'l'rll.h. I'ml'li~,'!; lUlll Ct)n~unU'r I'rowcUol) l.uw, 7:t I'U.SUlt. ~ :lot-\, I't .'11''1., lhU!~ exccl'llinK' Uw upplil'uble jUriHIIIl'llllnlLI minimum. Slit! PI.'t\ MI!tn. or Luw ut f), We ordcrclt the 11Ilrtll'K to fill' nwml)randu (If IllW on the iI'iSUI~ of our juri~didioll llVt'r the I"ubjecl mnlll'r of thb ('n~t', anll WI' hl'ld 11 hcarinK Loduy on t.he ISSUI~, [II Whilc the Juri,tlkllonlll.unount plain- urr nl!Cj,{CIi l'outro!:i unlel'>s tlw ddcndanl KhoWIi "tQ a It'KIlI cl'rtainli' thallhl' chlhn is Inlldcquute, Ht. PUlIl Mf'm..ry h<<bmwity (,'0, v. Red Cab Co., am u.s. 211:1, :!llH, r,X S.Cl. 686, 5001 82 L,Ed. Mf) (l~aX), we afC not bound by the COTnIJlaint'K conclu8ory nllcga- Uom~, but may took throu~h them to srW if plllinUff hIlS supported "them by competent proof .. by 11 preponderance of evidence." McNutt v. Gf!nCTUJ. MO(I}Y,'i A('ceptanl'e Corp., 2'J8 U,S. 178, 18~, r,1l S,Ct. 780,781',,80 l"f:d. 1135 (l~36). A brief recit..atilJn of the undiRputed materi. at fuct..~ of this Cl\,'ie v.in serve tu explain our di8posltlon or the JuriHclicUonlll iH8ue. On April 8, 19~r" Wllli:unHon purch,ulecl 0 l!l'Jr, Dodge Neon ror $17,20r,.81. Of th" purchll.'c there i~ more thun \1;0,000 In l:ontru\lt:r!>Y, but we que~tion hl)w ollen, III lad, th~\t h true," Our Court uf Appeab ..hare.. our l:unccrn' "{T]hcre I~ 1icrlou~ n:u.son to questi!)n whether Mr. Sll\lennan \llolatt'd the l.:Omlrllirll.'" nf Rule 11 of the Federal Rule.. of o\lil PnKedure by as~ert. ing that the Ilnlounl in controvt'ny In thl~ cll~e exceeded $50,000," /It/fat)! \'. Chevrulf!t Motor tJlV" No. 96~1~40, ..lip op. at 25 n, 9 Ud Cir. May S, 1997), u/f'R, l/l1terr)! v. ChrVT()/~t MI)lor VIV., No. 95-5324, 1996 Wl 281276 m,U.PII. May .10, \9961. 2, The whole..scJlt value of a o,lmilarly equipped 1995 Dodge Neon 10 Ih,.- trade, according to Ihe National Auto Research Black Book, Wo.$ be. tween 59.450,00 and 510,450.00, in July of 1996, Su Affidavit of Matthew Zielke, Chry$ler Arbltra. h'Jn Manager, at 124, llnd hi-. le!illmony. The Automobile Red Book Ihts the wholesale value of Mo" WUltam~()t1\ car al 510,500 1I~ of June .\0, 1996 S~~ Iti Nflnelhele..~, we u~c an cven lower value becall..e of the need It) remove an lifter. market alarm syslem (rom thc car al is!\ue, and replace Us elcclrklll h(xly harne's, Su iJ, at 121. Our (ourt ul Appcal-. in JlII(ut'l v. Chrvroltl Motor VIV, NI' '1t!--1,40, slip op at 15 (3d (ir prk.', hili' paill $:l,lt)() U."i IUI .J\Jl-(lr.I~K'ket IltlWIlIIllYrlll'l1l, unit nruUlI'I'i! lhl' $lo1,IO(,.Hl huhUll't-', ^ rt'w U\onlhs Unt'r plJr\'hu..,ln~ the NI'IJll, Williurmmn elf} Novl'fIlhl'r 1111 IUlJ7 htul thl~ \'l.I.r rl'pl~ln'll ror lhl! l\l1it of whut wemtd hp fivt' lirnt'H. WHllunu;110 l'lu..im~ thut Hhe h'L' to ,Iou.' Incurr,," II li>lJlI ur $Ii,1~1I.00 In firnUll'l' t'harw'~. S"" PI.'K MI'IlI, Ilf LllW ut r). 'Ii It:.Il.I'.. May 30, "geH ure b"L>d on I with 0 rcudlly-....,. then we m"y clllcol conndence wh"t U wl're,"); SubfT fl. ( &78, r.85 n. 7 (3d heeouHe "plwnUrr n the mlllluf.ctorer ,"ent of uny d"'"llI coU)~ on remand, the amount ~n conl! Iy, be reduced to .. vehicle when it ill r' 12) The luntJunt in l'ontruVI!rHY here may he l'al~ulull'cl uncll!r the aPllroul'h Wl' umk In Shim..kll v. f'lInl Mlltllr ell, 170 t'.IU1, 125 1I':.1l.1'1l.\!l'J7). B,'c,",,,' the value of WH- IiLuns1m's l'llr iK n'ulliIy Il."'l'l'rtnlnuhle- $H,900 2 -unci sine'p, undpr the lemun luw, WiIliafnKon would hav(~ hlUl to tmrrcndl!r the car in oreler to ~ct the IlUrchu..~l' price huck,' It is proper tQ It!.!duct the mw-kcl vatu!.! of the car In orcl.~r Ul lL'ic!.!rt.ain the urnount in con- trovcrny In thiH co.,e, Sce Shim.,ky, 170 f'.It.D. at 12r..-27; Hoe aL," Ifrmmt v. f'cnd Motllr CII., Nil, \lfJ.-4fi.la (t;,D.Po, t'eb. 25, 19U7) (Or<l..r); Ilwml /lilferly v. Chevro~t Motl/r /Jiv., Nil, 91',... 1 r>lO, sljp 01" at la, 116 F.ad 468 Gld Cir, MllY r" 1!l'J7) (endo..sing "net economic gain" approach or reducing the amo\Jnt plaintiffH m"y recover by the "rolr market, reWI v"lue of the vebic\e turned In hy the" plllintiffH),' afJ'g, J/ilferly v. CIUlVnJ~t Aforay Div" No. 9(H~1:M1 1996 WL 287276, at [3,41 The buse ill $6,967.01,' IlIld amoun~ we would $20,001.03 against attorney's rces, would never excee 5, 1\7,205.8\ (lh 18,'100.00 (th. val (U5e of car prior I IOc per mile, SH of Law 0' 5). "., Moror 01'01" No, 9 (E.D,Pa. May 30, CI,. May 5, \9971 metal if noLhlnl the Imount plaIn May ~, 11197) yesterday cndUl"!>cd the approach we took in 1I1/ft'rr)! v ('htVro/~r Motor Viv., No, 95--.5324, 1996 Wl, 287276 (f..D.Pa. May 30, 19116), which we U5e here, or looking to the affidll\llt of il qualified inJivlduBI who Clln credl. bly tc!)tlfy os to the pre!ocnt value of the car plaintiff musl return to the dcfendBnt in order to reco\ler IInything in a lemon law ca....e, Judic Nyg~lIrd, writing for a unanimous panel, in 1Ii/. ferly held that the use of an affida\li( from GM'I "(liS to mer lL"lIi5tonce managers that the average retail value In the greatcr Philadelphia area Qf a 1995 Che\lrolet Lumina, with the same features and mlleagc all the Hilfcrtys' car, I~ $16,350," slip np. at IS, was enlirely proper and character- i;r.cd Kimmel &. Sllverman'~ argument that "II was impossible to arrive at a fair market retail value or the cur" all "~ophistical:' III. at 11. 6. To r4:hcanc au Motor Div., No. ~ (ED.h. May 30 op. lld CI,. Moy reuonable pef'$l 120,901.03 In I, and vindicate pi no reasonable I '1 f4:el to win 521 L 1540, !ollp op. II I on ill valuation ~ litiaatlon as $4,l eel that no rei,. I almos, $1l,OOO ~ Iou of that am "l.lOme ntlonal l.. of .n 4:COnOml ho..,.d tryInl .. where. plaintl ,dlltrlct court "l reuonlble In n(mtemll quotil ) , Purthermon W've doubt 01 man', billinl IIlp Gp, It 211 ~mend the 3, "[TJhc manufadllrer shail accept return of the \lehicle from the purcha~cr and refund to the purl.:haser Ihe full Pllrcha..e prke, including all collotcral charge~, lcs~ a reu.snnacblc allowance fur the purchast'r'!\o u..e or Ihe vehicle," 7.1 Pa. Slat. ~ 11J'i'l 4. ,"iel' /l,t'Plerllll'l hI ill 1\ 17 & n. ~ \\'II.I.IAMSIIN ,. l'lIftYSI.Elt ('0111'. U,~..IH tHH 1'1 o.ur. 1'1197) -,\11';.1>1'11. May :111, H~,Il;) ("WIll'fl' UlI' datil '1'111' n'~'I,rd IH IlJlalllhiY\lllll:' that lh,' 1I~1'~ lir.. Itll....' "I nil llj~.~ tll t:ltlJ!,lbll' prll,..'rly ~IIIlIJllllt in ('IJf\I.r'lJ\'t'n>y in thi:, lIIall.'I' l'IIIIIIIIl with It n'addY'I\:-I'I'rlalllllhlt, fllllrkl'l Vllhll'. approlu'h tlJl' juri:;.dH'!j'"IUI mlllllllulII,l WI' lI\1'tl WI' Illay l'lIlt-lIlah' With u hl~h h''o'I'( or ltllW filllllo Il II'Kllll't'rt..ainty that th.. IUlII,llfll ~'l)nlid"llt'" what lhl' J"l'1I.1 welrld dUfllaW':-i 111 l'Illllrll\'I'n;y, I'\'I'/l with Irl'hlillK HIIII 1\'01 1,1,'1'1'1',"); :""dll'r to ('llr1J,~{a ('/1111" ll~l V.ad l->lJflahlf' alttlrr\l'y'R rlll'S, could nlll twrl' rl'lwh r,7K, ["....h 11 7 c~d Cir.lt~n) (hlJldln~ thut $[.10,1)00,1)1, ^l'<.'I)rllin~ly, we tind tlllit WI' hl'I'all:,I' "plaltll.1fr IIlll:it rl'lurn the whidl! tlJ bu'k juri:;dkllon uVl'r th,~ SUhjl'l't nmlll'r l)f tl\l' m;ulllfat'tun'r ill ordl'r tl) rl'l'l'lw pay. t.hi~ t'n:>l', 1I\1'IIt IJf allY darna~"!i awardl'd," lhl' di:itrid l'ourl, un rl'lIland, rllll~l dl'u'rlllhll' "wlll'tt)l't till' !H1ll/unt III 1'lInU-IIVI't\y :-;hould, ut'l'tjrdifl~- ly, 1)1' rl'dUI'l'd III IU'I'IJunt fllr UII' vahJt> of lh" vl'hkh' \\hl'fllt j:;. rl'tllrrwi!"j, pocket 106.HI IlK the 17 had would tt she .00 In y at 5, I muy l(}k in ),12li Wi!. ,blc--. luw, .r the IIlCk,1 ,r thc I con. 170 Ford I,2/), /TO"t :, 116 1'Slng ~ the "fair ,d In 'TO"! ,'6, at t:t, ,II Ttll' ha_"I' liwJrt, fllr thi:-; calculation i:-- $1i,~H:7,1l1,~ and WI'te we to treble thi:-; mill/lint, WI' w'luld :--till havt~ a hu.'il' of unly ~O,B01.lJa a~aifl~t which tlJ udd 11 reu.'ionublt.' attorrll'Y's fl'I'~, I.('~al ft~e:; in this CIL"ie wOllld nl'\'l't 1':<l'I'l'd $~U,{mH,~,6 5, $17,1m,1I1 Ithl' lJun.:hu'iI' prh:e) Illlnu'i $11,'100 (1) (Ihe \'OIhH~ ollhe (ar) minus SI,HHOO [\I~l' of l';H pll!)r I,) fil\t repuir---10,3J8 mill''i 011 IO{ per t1l1k \/',' n I'a Stal, ~ 11)~5; PI.'~ Melli III Law at ~J A~ .....1. IllJlcJ in I/IIff!rt'l \I, CllI'vn;/t'/ ,\lrJfnr /)1\'. /'\11 'is ~ 124, I'N6 WL 28U76, at '1 (E,lJ.l'a Mav 10. I 'Nt)), flfl'd, No. 96--1';40 OJ tll' Mil'" 1, I'N7), thl' \'lIll1c of thl' car, "for "nap 1Il~'lal If Il'ltl\llll! ~'I'il'," IIltl'it ~ JeJuded lmlll th~' <Im'Jllllll'l,lllltltt lIlay n'n"'er, OD~'h . No / 30, , th, rtdi. c.r cr to udg' Iii/. ~M'!o rage of. ure$ 10," cler- I"it ctail 17. 6. rClldlt'.t1~" Ullt hClldln~ inl/llrerty \.I CJ,.'\mdl'/ .\("/,,r /JI\ . SIi ',S 'i 124, !'J')6 WI. 2H727tJ, lit 't, IE UP.. M,I) '0, I 'NO), tJlf'd, No. 9&.1';40, !>lip 'lP Ill! ell .\1.1', 'i, !'In): We do 1\1)1 hdievl' UIlY n:"'llliabk [1n~')1I v;'Jldd ever "pend mure thilll $20,'}(ll 0' ill Il'~~al ke" 10 rel'uvt:r S20,'-mI.O] lint! villdKak Il') Illht'r irllere'it. We arc certum no n:il';IHWbk' pl'I''ion wIJlIld pay S2'J,O'J8.98 in fl'l'~ III Will $20.'ml 01 Set' IIl/ruty, Nl), 96- !1:,40, 'illp op at 9 od (jr, May 1),19')7) ("UU!led Oil it'> vulualloll "f 111I' ml l'l.:onomh: Hain of Ihe IltlllalllJll a~ ~4,07t) HO, Ihe dhtri"t court (IlnduJ- cd that nl) rca~lJllilhle pcr'ion would ha\iC spent almlJ\t S I \.000 to vindit:ale 51 purely c(onomic lo"s of that amount, We agrec-, There mu~t be 'omc ratIonal rel.:lliomhlP hl'tween \he Dmount of an 1".-(H\l)lIlll I,)'i'i and the expenditurl'~ elt, hall'itcd I'Vllll/: 10 rClOUp Ihul 1m;,. Indl'ed, whl're a plallltill ;1l.'hICIIC~ only limited 'Ul,'Cl:'i!l, a d'~lrill UJllIt "hout.! awald only thllt UnlotUlt rea~llIli\hk 11\ relation III the re'iult.'i ublainl'd "J 11111l'rllal 'jll<oIitll'JIl rnalk~ llnd ,-itillllln l)tJlllh'd) f'IJlllwlnl'HI'. ')III ([Jlllt I)f Appeul'i tW'i (U'll ilraVe douht "II Ihe H'lll(.ity of Kimmel &I Silvn' lTlilll''i hllllllj1 jlliILllll'\ III/r,.rry. Nil '16 1'i40, ,lip IIp illll I ," (It May'i, 1997) i"lndl'l'd, WI' UIIlIlJ1t'llll tIll' p;.tll'lll l'lf'lIt III Itw dl~trlll I Illlt 1 n ur I tht :.11 !nce p, 1:1:\ All llpprrlpriatl' (Irdl" fIJIIIJw:-;. oum:u ANU NOW, thiM lith day or May, IU~17, aftl~r It ht'llnut{ in o(l(~n CfJurt thiH nfu'rnooll, and upon cowiiderllt!on or pll1ifltifrs rnI!Ull'- rllndurn of law und uJlicJuvit in tiUPI)f)rl of t1iv~n;,ity juriHcJlction, deft!mlllneH rt~;lplmSI! thert.'to and accompanying affidavit, anll in uccorlhlllCL' with the uccompunyin~ Ml'lJllJran- dum, it L. herehy OItlJEIU:U thllt: tl) arnve DC 0. reu!>ollllhlc DWl&rtJ of uttllrney~' kc~ lJotwith~tandinR the tolul lad; of a reul hllhlll( 'Y'iICIll und Ildl'qUDtl' rl'cord-kcepiIlK proudun.''i ~ll'llIO"'itrat~d hy (Kimmel) & SilVl'rIlHlIl,"), \t'" Ill.\O id. ut 24 '''Murc()v~r, we aIM) Ilotl' that there l'i additional evidl'I1((' in Ihl' retlJrJ Ihlll ruises scril1u~ quc!llinns ",huUI plaintilfs' tllun- ~e1'o; \lel'ul'lty and conducl throughout Ihc (01111\1' of thi'i I.:Il~e "); id, ut 21ll n. Ij ("lWll' lI111dudl' thllt the Jhtrkt l:nurt wu~ murt: thun JU"lIlkd ill plulln~ hUll' t.:lllll1dcrll.'e IlIlhe veludty of plain- tiff'i' l'llllll'il'I"I ,'i.'t' \141m, n I O.{\I11' II "1Il~- Ilnm) 7. Alternillivl'ly, If we nil (!nllll!!h I'lillntilt\ up- jllOIll'h III vil'w Ihe eCOllUlllk rCllhty 01 the Iran~- adii)fl herl', !Ill' record I" undisputl'd Ihat wtl. IH-'n1sun'" tOlal out,of,pot.:kel expl'nditUll' fur the car i" 011 mO!lt SII.I0104--S3,IOO,QO (down pay- Illl'nt) plll'i $8,061.04 (accrued fiUllnn~ amI prill- cipul dlUrgc'i). Wl' note lhul Ihl' a1l10unt uf III1OlI\I:e charge" has, "in,-'c thc Jatc of the Ilrhilru- I\lm (lwurd (f-'cbruary 11), hel'n entirely III plain- Ilffs cfJntrol: <;urf(~nder of the car would Itnrne- dllllely cut off further acc;nlal of such charges. Uut e\len if we were to treble the unudJll\led out- nf.p<lCket fiK\Ir~~, we would hove II th~'nrcticul ha'iL' of only $3.1,483.12 DHaln"t whith III illM a rca'inlluhll' altorncy', fc~~. Rcu~jUllahle ultor- ney's fl'c\ could nut po......lhly rl.'D(h Slfl,"16,g9 where it ut:ceds the base 10"" by 48%; 110 nlllon- alculllornk tll:lor would tmdcrlUkl' ';l1th a 1001- i'ih lran!lildiflll .'i"t\UprtJ n_ 1'1; \I't' (1111) Nf/f \l (;o/t'rIll MfJ/fJr\ ('oW, 16J (-',R D, 47H (E" I'a IfN'i) It il\ Iherefore \:ll'ilr Ihat tI\I' al1l(HIIlI III lonlrlJver~y in th~'i \:a...e d.)Cs flot UPfllO;ldl thl' )urhdll'lillnulminlmllOl eVl'n lllldt'r thl~ (;11 III1Jlt. Ill'lU"rull'i (anti rcnnlllllilully lInllkel,,) 111t'111II11 01 .akulatillll 1:11 17:1 F1WEltAI. ItIlI.ES DEI'ISllINS Thb l'll~" I." J)ISMI~SJ-:I) f'rr lad., 'If ~llhJI'I'llllutll'r Jlln"dlditW; Hilt! :!. 'I'llI' ('It'rk !"hall ('I.f )SE Ihl" I'll:"> .'-Ia li:--tkaJly. o flllt"JMtl~'I".ll'" Laurel MOl;\'ltIlSSY, "1111,, v, COMFOItT INN, el Ill. Civil Acllon No, 91Hmn Unlll',l :-;~tl.l!~ I>islricl C1lurt, E.ll.l'ellll'ylvIIlllu. MllY 7, I!)'J7. Fl'mulp flJrnwr l!mpll))'l'l':-\ hrlJug-ht Ill'- tion UKuinst their fonlwr l'rnplll,'l!r (or nlleg'- l'dly l'rl'ulinK h'lslilt. w',rk l'nvironnll'ut thar- llCteril.ed by f\l'xual hura.'ismcnt In violation o( Titlc VII and th" 1"'nllHyll'olliu Ullman Hela. tlolls AcL On (ormt>r l'rnpluYf.1r'ti m{)thm for Hummury jUdl(JllOlll. th" IJbtrict Court, II at. lO:1, .J" held that n1fltion for I'ummary jurlg-- ownt would be (","h'd v.'lth 11'11\'(' to renp',a..' ('JIIII.....inlll'lol-il' of c!iscflvl1ry. Million clt!nl('d. J. t'eder,,1 ClvlIl'",,'edure ~25.13,1 rr court del1!rrninN; that ('onven;!on of motilJn t.o dil"mlss If) onf.' for ~umma.ry jud~- rnent 11' Ilpprflpriah.', partit':-i rtlll:-t hi' KiVell notkl' ,,( ~ul'h cnnvl'rl'lon and opportunity to prp:o:rnt matt.'ril1b In l'upport und f)(lpoRlt!un tfl conv('rsion. Fed. Hull'l' C;i\',ProC'.Huh..'1' l~(bJ, o()(c), :!Ii lJ.S.C.A. 2., .'tderal Civill.rocl.'dure (?255a .:mploYl'r'l' motion (Ilr !;ummary judl{- nl(mt would l".' lIl'nir'll with l..'IiVt! to renew (nllnwinl{ clo:-u:o n( di~('nvl~ry, th/Jul{h employ- ('(IS had not fiI(!d affirlnvlt, where thl'Y IcJcnti- fl(ld inronno.thm thllt hud Yf't to tll' diRl'OV(~r. cd, anti showed that in(llmllltifJn yet to }w dil'('IIvf'rf'rl would affect summary judj(ment III1I! why OlllWIll'l1 II.S( '.^ dIH'I,vl'ry had fjlJl "n'\'lfH!."I)' I~ h.d_HIIII':_ ('l\'.I'rtll'.HIlII' r)liff), Wllytl., A. Jo:ly, I\r,'llI",", BIll'"n, Vlllllri (;"IIIrnh, I'hlllUll.'lphla, PA, (IIr I'lalntiff:-. ,Iflhll :--;, IIllrnf.fll1, Ih,thll'hl'ff1, flA, fllr I fl'nllarI14'i. Mf:M/lIIANIJ/I.It ANII O//IIf:1I IllJ1"l'lJN, lliHtrkl ,Iudl(l'. Pn'~l!nUy 1mf!)rt. this Court is the Der'! t1l1nt.'i' Motiml lo I>isrni:;s Ull' I'lnintini Aml'nrll'd Complaint und for Summary ,Iudg m('nl ([)ockf'l Nil. fi> u.nll ttw Plaintiff:,' !'\'Ilm~l" th..rt!lo. I, IIAC'KWW//NIJ Tht' plaintiff;.; itl thi:; l'll-'1l', LllUrL'l Mo~yro8 KY lIud Luura E)!iUl, Wt'rl.' hirl'd in I~J:J to work at thl' l'otTIflJrl Inn Mou'l at :1660 Strt't~t J(oad, Ih'n:-'l1lt'OI, Pennsylvan Pllllllti!T MIJj.(j'rIJt':;j' wI)rk(!d ut the mold as dl'l'ik l'1f..rk Ilnd ;j, l'iall':'; repr~s(~nlati\'l', while plaintiff 1-;j.('l1n work/.'d ll."i a l)()okkeeper: (Am.Comlll.. at ~~ 17-1~.) !loth of th"He. pIOYl'l':- wert' Ilndt_'r the SUI)(!rvi:;lon of dcfe dant Lllu :-;I'rafirlt', lhe mllu:'I':; ~(lnt'ral m Ilj.('t'r, (fd.) Plaintiff MflK)'roRHY uJl(,~(,H th& dd('ndant Sl'rafinl' "subj(,l'wd lher) t..o n mt'rou:; unW('Il'llrnl! lLnd unMllicited commcn lUul IlcUmlH, includin~ comrncnt.'\ rl'g'.u-d Ihori wl'll(hl. prel(l1l1ncy, and physicw (leorance." (hL "t ~ 20.) In addition, all('~e:; lhat elef('udant Sl'rufinc mnde h fro'l",'ntly hilI( him, and unjustifiohly denJ' h,.r II ('hriHtm..., hOllUS. (/,L) Plaintiff E 11I1I'~I'H that df-'ff'ndant Sl'rnfinp tll~hnv('d in :;irnilllr OI11nnf~r tJlw:mls h('r. (/d. III 121 Shl! claim:; thal durin~ her t!mJlloyml'nt Ow mOlf,l, the' dt'fl'nclant ){encral man "suhj(,('lt'cJ Ih'.'rlll) nUrtll'rOUt; unwC'lcome unHoli('jll~11 ('omnll'nt.'1 ancl Ill'lions, Inclu ('lIrnm(lnl.'i rt'l{a.rdil1j.( (herl flt'n\onal phYHil'lil uflfll'uru.nl'p, Ilflfl ('onlm't ,-",th rn hl'l'll or thl' "Jlp'lHitl' S,.x." (loLl In "ddlti Kht' allt.'J{I'K thllt dd('ndllnt Hl'rnfinr req tIPr to kil'iH him un lhf' du'('k. arL) B f JllulnLifT:; mllintuin thut th(lY complained ddl'ndllnt SI!rafinl"p, tx'huvjor t.o .:iJ S;lIMHK\' v, FllItIl MO'l'On ('0, lU.u110 I-.MII, 1.1'\ fLU I'.. 1"'171 morv jlldvrll,,"1 A" 0 r"Mllt, l.hlH ('''''I'I IT IS I-'lIlt'1'lIJo:I( OIWI':HI.;n TIIAT d,' n.ntl~ thallhi:- Ilrv,1I1111'1l1 Ir; irllpropt'rly l'al~l'c1 fl'lIdafll't\ llIotlOIl for rl'Ur~!llltll'nl 1:-; dl'lIll'd. In lht' iUi'tafll lllol.iulI for r(IUr){tlll\lmL SO O!tDEIU:n III it" LJJir.t llr~U1l1I'1l1 III HlJllpOl'1 of II." l~)('nl Hull' :llj) lIlolion, UTe l'onlt.'wlt\ thnt nolhill~ ill tht' Flll'lorinK A~rt.'l'lIwlIl prohihlt l-d B'l'<' frolll faxiu~ itll IUIU"I' or h""lIIl11lllitJll, anct that rl'll'\'lllll l'll~t' InY.' I)rt)\lidt'~ no IIllHiK ll) imply a l'll\'I'IJ:11I1 whkh l'ould hllVl' Ilrohih lli'tl UTC from faxillJ.{ UII udilllltllml ('oilY of U1l' lIotlt'I' of h'111llnuUtJlI to lIlJl1~ Kllllj{, lUTe Ml'Il10 at 7-~.) I.lk(l it.'{ nrKI tWI) nrKlI- "Will:;, liTe dId 111)1 rlLhlt~ UIIK nrK\1I11l'1I1 11IL rorl~ lhlM Court ill till' underlytul{ liunullury jUdl{lTIl'lll mol/I)II, ThlK Court lh(!rl!(tlrl~ nnd8 U\:lllhls llrWlIIH'lItlr; improperly rllilit'd in 0 lIIolltJn ror tl1urK\Ulll.ml, ami t.herl'forl' should he denied, In It..ll rourlh nntl linnl argument, UTe; advol'(lh~~ u pmdlion in IiUIJI)()rt of itA motion (or re:trK\lI1wnt whh.'h IlcluBlly wn8 heforl' this Court nn UTC'ti motion (or 8uIlunary Judgllll'nl. IlTe contend. that It roxed ~J Hong Kong 011.' not!cl' of wnninnlion in ordL'r to intiurl' HOl'rl'r'ti linwly recC'ipt o( tlll' no- U('l'. It!. at K IIt.'C1UlIll? UTe nhw 8L'nt ttll' noticl' via 1'('J'titil'd mall, UTe c1ain1!~ that tl1l' rax lIH.'relj' l'XI'I't't1l'd, mlhl'r than violated, Section Nin('. Id. IlTC rwsed this IIrgu- ment to this ('I)urt In support o( it..; motion (or tHHnrnary judgment. IImmif' & Co., 9.ir) F.Supp. III 711;-17; (!lTC SJ Memo "t 2.'>-- 29.) In it':i WHH Opinion. however, this Court ~onRid('rl.'d and rejected this argurnC'nt be- ~aU8e this Court (ound that Section Nine h" ambiguous, and thus a proper subject (or ~onRideratiol1 :it tlla!. /lonnie &: Co., 94r) F,Supp. lit 717 -IR As previously slat.-d, "[oj Loclll Rule :IU) moUon Is not a motion to reargue iSRucR already considered when a . party does not like the way the original motion WI1~ resolved," lloubigant. 014 F,Supp. al 1001. lJecau,e this Court consid- ered and reject.-d this IIrgument In IJTC'. IOmmory jlldl(1llent moUon, this Court finds 2, Federal CourU e=>3,10,1 \hat the InHUlnt argument Is not properly ralsed In . ""col Rule 3U) motion, Accord- Ingly, this COllrt find. that IITC Is not enU- tied to r{'ar~\JC' thiR iR8U(', IYJNC/.1fSION IT IS m;Rf:IlY OltDt:ItF:D THA1' ploin- 8' motion for reargument 18 denIed. l:.!li o {lIlhll/llb" ""IM James SIIIMSKY v, Form Morolt COMPANY, Civil Action No, OIl--aOO6, Unit.-d Sll1t.-b District Court, KI>, Pennsylvonio. Jon, 9, 1997, Automobile owner brouJ{ht nction llJ.{uintlt rnlll1u(uctut(.'r undl'r P1mnliylvanla'K Ll'l!lon Law. Munu(nclurer UlI)Vl'd to di8~ miss (or luck or 8ubj(~('t matter jurl:ullctlmt. The DlHtrlcl Court, Dalzell, ,J., held that nrnount in controverKY was inlmtnclent to confer Ruhject mnttC'r jurh\(liction. MOlion to dismiss grunted, I. Federal CoorU e=>355,I, 359 Although jurisdictional amount In con- troversy alleged by plointlff control.. unless derendllnt shows t.o " leg,,1 certainty that claim is in"dcquat.-, 'ourt i. not bound by complaint'. conclusory alleglltions, but may look through them t.o see jr ploinUrr hUH supported them by compewnt proor by pre- ponderance of evidence, 28 U.S,C.A. I 13:12. Amount in controversy In automobile owner's action against manufacturer under I'ennsylvunla's Lemon Law was at most $16,. R04.60 plus att.orney (ees. and thus district court IlIcked subject mlltt.-r jurisdiction; owner'g total out.o(-J>ocket expenfleR w('re $17,101.50, bot owner would have t.o return automobile, which had value of $11,560 when OEF.NOANT'. I..~.. 12(j 1111 n:m:ItAI. Itl'LES 11IWISIOl"S Ul'LJql\ was nlt.d, Hill! lllllti hmll' n~(L1n' enr dllllln~1' l'llll'ulntillll WHli llllly $.\I~)I.rIO. whkh l'l)uld lip lrl'hll.'d IUHlt'r 1.1'111011 Lnw. :.!.I.o; 1I,H.C.A.1 \:\:12; 7a I',~. ~ 1~lr,r, (;Il'ml (;.'rll"f, Pllwl'r & <il'rh,'r, p,( '" MI' dia, PA, fl)r JlhLinIJ.ff. 11<lllllld S. Yuro, nllhlH ,~ Hl'illy, I'A, J.Iv IIIJ.{tit.on. N.J, (IIr dl.tt'ndllnt. Mf:MOUAN/IIIM DALZEl.l., Dlslri<t ,JUdgl'. After Ull' Od()ul'r 2:1. IOt.Hi u.rbilrlltilJll of thlH I~rnl)n Inw CHHl't c1dl'ndullt mlld II de- rtlllncl (or trio I d,' ,WIlO purHullnl to Local H.Civ,P. r~t2,7. On Novl'rnlJllr 21;, W!)fj, pri- or to BellinK thl' fIlntwr ft>r trial, W(I oruered thl! "artll's to 1iI(' IIJl1fT1orunda "luJdrl'ssinK Uw Court's JurhlCJiclion QVl'r OJ(' lIuhjt.'t~l mal- ler In view of thl' nHlrkl'l vahl(' rl',hlt'lion thl.' nlll'Y.'l>d l!t'ff.'rl hUH ruul'Ied to Jllall1tifr~; ('ar". Upon c()JH~lclerlltion of till' p:Lrtll':O;' T11l'fIIornn- da, it hl-'Cllllll' llppart'lIt that it Wll~ nl'l'l'~~ary to havl' nn ....vidl'ntiary hl'arifl~, whidl Wl' held <ln Oe<emher 2:1, 19lH), AM It. result of thl~ acti\!it~., thl..' ddt.'lIdant takes the position that w.... lack jurisdiction over the suhject mattA'r. For tht.' rea~onH that follow, we BKr........, Plaintiff JameH Shlmsky olleKcH U,at tlll' damBKeR to whir.h he is entitled in this diver. t1ity action exceed the jurisdictional mini. mum, Compllllnt ':1, Specilically, Shim sky claims that his" Lemon Low domagr. in t.hJ. situation (withnut any att.orney fees, lillan<e eharges, and without exemplary damages un- der the [Pennsylvania Unruir Trade Practlces and Consumer ProwcUon LllW, 7:1 1'.8. ~ 201-1 .t 8<'1.1) equals the $1ll,:1:!0.00 pur. chase price or the vehi<le plu, $750.00 in Hales taxes and $62,00 In dOl'uml'nt and title fees plus finance charge:;," P1.Mem, at .1th unnumbered Jlage, (1 J While the juriHdictional amount Illwn- tiff alleges control:; unleRS the ddendant shows "to a legal certainty" that the claim Is Inadequate, S~ /'"..1 MeTCU'7/lntl.mllity Co. I, or perhap!l hhllnri(1I1 Intere,t, atlhe tUlle of the arhitration 011 lktoher H. 1~96, the f'orJ Con I' Unl ('lib ('0., an:! U.K. :!~;l, ~""''''I, r...... :-;,('L r)o"'l4\, Wl), Joi~! I.,Ed. k-If, 1I~I:j."'), WI' art' 'lilt hnllJllllty L111. t'nrnl,LIIIII'1i 1"JHdll~l)r.y ulll'l{u. !.i'llll', IJUl rna~' I, Ink thrnllvh lllt'lll 1,1) Iit'l' It I'lallllj(f ha,'i Iillppllrtt'fl "Ult'lIl by t'lllllllt't('llt proof by II pn'pollfll'fHlll'I' flf t'vidt'llt'l''', McNlltt I'. CiI'f/I'nJI MfJr"tH A/'t'I'/lfl/~II'" ('ory!., 2!IH (l,S. 17", 1~:J, r)fj :-i,Ct. 7~11, 7~r,. HI) L.1';d, 11:Jn (lOall); Ht',' u/.w! NI'I:lOII l' /\"f:(.'r, ,Ir,! F,2tl2SU, 2t~I-!)t) lad eir,lU711. 121 In rt":il)(lll~t' to plalnUfr:-- IlIll'ratIIJl1Ii, defl'lll!anl Ford Motor COlllpany corrt.'ctly nales tJUlt Shlltll'iky hu:; mlsilltt.'rpretl!d the lell10nluw dllmll~Ws I'foviHiofl, which prtlvhl1'8 that "the manufal'tllrl'r shall ar.cl.'Jlt rl.'- tunl of th(~ vehi-~Il' from HJ(' IlUrdllll'l!r llnd rdund to Ull' Illlrch:Uil'r till' full purcJw....~e pric~, includill~ nil collllt('ral chargl..'s. It.'lili a rensonllhle allowOllll't.' fur UJ(' Jlurrha:H.'r'/i tllle of the vehicle", i:J Pl1.S~It.Al\n, ~ I!JM, Thu" a plaintiff Ilk,' Shlr",ky rel'dve, back hiH plIrchaHl..' prkl', hilt Illllst ~lIrn'ntll'r the car, Ii dl'duL'lion, aH WI..' Hhall l'how, o( Ii rl!udily.nH('ert.ainatlll.' vallll', At the Decemh('r :!a hearinv, thl' partit.>s KtipulalOd that ShltllHky III fa<\. puid $Ill, 330.00 fllr his I!*lr. Ford Contour, Mod..J GI" N.T. at;l, TogetllL'r with !'all':> lax, litll' (ee, and documentary fel', Shirusky'Ii t.otal out-of. pocket expenditure for lhl' ear was $17,- 151.50, St'l' N,T, at a~1 (Ii:;tin~ CO:it:; tot..allin~ $17,151.50). At Ute hearin~, Ford':; t'xI'ert ""itncKS, Ilich,,,,' Woyu,wi<h, lestlOed that plainliff was unhappy with a "hu1.1.inR noi:;tl" during acceleration, Mr. Woyto",,;ch con tinned that, when he road tested the Conwur, there was indeed a "bUV/ti1.1. type of noIse", N,T. at 46, at 1500 t.o 2400 r.p.tII. Mr, Woyt<lwi<h al,o testilied that the problem with the Con lour would be tixed by re"ladn~ tI\l' engine'/; Ex. haust On:; Heclrculatillll Vlh"llUlIl Hegulatdr Solennld ("EVIl"), N.T. at 4H..m Accnrdln~ to him, thl' cost for labt.>r IIlld (lart for the replacement or till' EVil would Ill' $lr..OO, N.T. at 52. AlthouKh Mr, Wlly'nwi<h '",tlli,'d that the minimum Bllction vuluL' of Ule Hubject car at aucUon would be $1O,2M.00,' N.T. at (,0, he conceded that t.hili value WIlN IlR of the No- lour haJ ?.-IMl mile"ofl ii, NT al ~ SAItKO v, l'ENN-llEL llllmC'J'OItY co, (III uno f.R.O. 1)7 (E.n..... 19911 vClnl}l~r 2fll 1\)<<,)0 cditll)ll of the N,A.n.A. ItmulIl law, he mUMt liurrl'llcll'r hill cur in "lUul! Hook" I whieh dOCK nQL relate t..o Ull! ordl'r lo Kl.'l the JlUrChlll!l! price hBCk, it ili value of till! CW' as or thl.! lime till! complaint prop,,'r to dl.'ducllhl' nmrket VBlu!! o( the car was nled, numely, Muy 2H, IO'.)(). WIO,out in '1uestlon 08 of Ole dllle of flllnK 10 deter. objection, Ford Willi grll.I1U'" 1t'IlVt! to ml~ n mine UIl.' amount in cOlllroverKY. The hu.til' .upplemenll1l ufTIdavit of Mr, Woyt.owkh 1.<1 fil!"re, for thlH colculntlnn, is $l'),I~ll.1iO ($17,- .et rorUI the valne or 010 CIU' u"ordlnK t.o O,e 1&1.1iO minus $11,&r.o,oo), If we were t.o tre. "U1ue Book" publhdllltl nearl't1L May 28, lOOt). ble this Rum, we woultt Kull huve 11 blase of It turn' out that the May 1:1, IO'.)() "\llul' only $111MH~) against which 1.<) udd a ,'eO- Book" shows that the carls value at Umt time I:wnuhlc Bllorney's fee, To be reasonablc, wu. $11,6&0,00, Woyt.owlch afro ut , 7. such a ree could not pOH8lbly l'quol six times It is quite c1eur, and undlspul.<!d by Mr. the market 10'" or double the \rebled Woyt.owlch'. testimony, that the fll!"re in the amount. S" Neff V. c;"".rul Motors Corp.. "Blue Book" consUtute. 0 mlnlmnm price a 16.1 F,It.ll. 478 (~~,ll.J'u.\!rJ5); lIilferty V. dealer can expect ut an aucUon t.o the trude Chivrolet Motor Viv., 1!l96 WL 287276 er the car in que.Uon, According t.o hi. (E,D,Pu, Muy 30, 19'J6).' uncontroverted tesUmony, the prices listed in This record thus lellves no doubt \.hut, the "Blue Book" are based upon actual trans- taking even the most conservative value,- the action price. at weekly uucUons that ure amount in controveruy I" tills cuse doc. not lirnlt.o;? t.o the \rude, ^" such, the "Blue upproach $&0,000,01, and HO we find that Book prices ure both current and conoerva- defcndunt hllll met its burden or proving t.o a Uve, the latter In t~e .ense that the prl~e legal certulnty Ulat the amount in con\rover- repre.ents u deuler 8 WOrHt",.se l'<onomlC 'th ,. bll d bl ttor . . BY, eV(ln wt we ng on rea80nn e a - scenano ir he cunnot sell a c.r t.o the public ., f I J t d .m 000 .. rr hi I t ,,"thl tll d r I t ne,' eeH, eou ( no exoee ",""" . ,.... a o 5 0 WI n 1 rty ays 0 t..., rc urn. ' N.T, at 22-2:1. re,ult, we find that we hIck junsdlcUon over the BubJect matter of thIS dlspuw, Given the undl.Jluted realities of the mar- ket Mr. Woyt.owlch de8crlbed, we arc rorti- fled in our view that our R,d Cob-McNutt enterprl.e in the lemon law context is differ- ent in kind rrom what it would be in, say, a clllle involving bodily injury, Clearly, only a jury can appraise the value or pwn and sur- fering, IOBa or enjoyment or life, and .imilar 10..e., The record here .hows that, by con- trast, the murket constantly make. apprais- als ef 10.. of the .ubject property, and that .uch appraisal. are readily ascertulnable, We may therefore safely rely upon tho.e market-determined value. in discharging our duty or ...urlng that we have juri.dlction over the .ubject matter or such suits. Becau.e the value or Shimsky'. co, Is readily ascertulnable, and .ince, under the 68 B,CL are not y allega- tA) aee if Impelcnt vidence", '" COfp" 80 L,Ed. ",..., 451 lecation., eorrecUy reled the I provide. _ptre- 1&Hr and purthase :ea. Ie.. a .aaer's use ,. t 1955, lIvea baek 'eDder the _, or a he parties paid $16,- Model GL, II, title reo, otal ou\-or- wu $17,- .18 totalling rt wltne.., at plalnutr 108" during tnned that, t there was N.T, at 46, WwIch aIao lie Contour q\De'a Ex- I RellUlator Aeeordlng lUt ror the be $75,00, led that the 1bjeet cur at T, at 60, he of the No- 1. To be r.recise, to reach $50.000,01. the coun~l fee wou d have 10 be $33,195.51. which Is 5.9.J times lhe $5,601.50 market loss and 1.98 times the trebled amount of S 16,80450 3. We say "most corucrvatlvc" bc-cause we huve made no "reuonablc allowancc" ror the plain, tiff, "use or the vehlclc" given lhe undisputed rulh} that he at leut ..'\ or October 23, 1996 had driven the car 7,S68 miles, Su n, I, Sj,4pra, The record does not Jlscto!loe the mileage on the car '. 127 . o I lIT Ilu...au ,'''"... I Shuron K. SAItKO, Plaintlrr, v, PENN-DEL DlItt;CTOItv COMPANY, Defendant. Civil Action No, 96--4428, United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvunia. Jan. 22, 1997. Former employee brought Americans with lll.ubilitie" Act (ADA) action alleging l\.'\ of the dale of filing. It seems rnsonablc to a.uumc !.hat the value of Sill months' use or a S \'1,15 t car at leWlt equals the finance charges plaimiff say!; he has incurred, which he renort, were "appro:ltlmately Sl.ooo" .., of me date his counsel filed his m.rmorandum on this issue. P\.Mem. at ~lh unnlJmbcred paie, Presumably, a., of May 28, 1996, those charies would be h;J.lr Ihj~ a~!lerted sum - Z'il'EQId "J:lJ.D.L "''to . IIII ;~ I~II ~12; ! I. ell' ,; I~II ~I;I ~~~, .' u" n II~I ~I~~ li~~1 I! ~~~~ 1M ~~I~ ;~~I ;~;: . . ,&I ~ ~ iii I ~i' 3 . R I' ~n u nulnn '!). 1 t' i t ~Il !~3a3c33.SS33 3~~3 1 13Q33.33~33c33.33 33 11 liia31~al!llall!!a 1111111.~lili!I!!II!I!!IIII~i i I UBY. 5~ ~In ~~~~ I~nld~~ ! ~~ ~~ !~ ~!! ~~.~! III ~~al ~~. ~~al ~~al i~Sl61iUU il p~ p~ ii~ ~~ fl~ ~~ .1 I ~ ~~~~ .* "u~ ~:ilfa~' - ii lln U ~~ 1J~ ila ~~ ag I ~nl ~I DIn ~~~II~I I~ 111~ I~ i~ ~; >> ~~ ~B ~~ n n. I; ~ I ~; ~~ ;~ ~I " ~f ~ ~i D~ ~~ ~N II g! o. _ _ _roo __ __ ...... 6 ~~ 6~ ~i ~! ~~'II - - -- -- -- -- -- 1-- - ........-._-----_.__.~-- ,- ;11~i~ ~I;I ! ; ~~, ~~5j ~~n ~~ ~~~ I n naG .II~I j;!~ ~ ~~.' ~~~~ ;~~~ ~g ~n .c ~~ ~g~~ ~~~~ i~~1 B I~ ~~~~ ~!~~ ~~~=Hft II ~~ ~~~~ ~~II ::;~ ~ I~ :~8~~ iiii ii 'jjii . I iliA I ~i . '. 51': lau.uUlnn ~. '- 8 sul.u tiU 11 111~1~lill~!!i litl B'l~;:I~li~:ii!i~illlli~lii i I ~~ nn fi~~! IU!B~iI~; ~ n n~ll~n ~I g~i~ ! II at O~Ci O~D. ;~r.~~n~u ~ ~~ ~~S~ ~~a; ~~ ~~a~ 9 K U UiUl :uu Ii '. ~ ~A ~lU~ l:IIU l!h aSft- · I II nn D~n I!" ij J~ i~n ii~i ~i ~i5i ~ ., ',' ',' (;: '-.n (.- .' r..~ ,. ,( LJ.lr r" . ( " f; ".1 <..l; l ,'.~) f'I' .. ..'.. IT U' n , I ,- , f. ~'I ! 'r , ".' LL. (!: ..? 0 u' c..J " " , . . , " i' . . '. collateral charges and attorney's fees," Defendant contends and has done so at the Pre-trial Conference that the amount in controversy in this case does not exceed the applicable $25,000,00 arbitration limits for Cumberland County, Defendant refers the Court to its Motion to strike this matter from the trial list and/or continue the action which is filed concurrently with this Pre-trial Memorandum of Law detailing the reasons why this matter should proceed before an arbitration board and not before a jury, Plaintiff's Complaint does detail several alleged problems and/or complaints with the 1995 Dodge purchased in Maryland, Plaintiff's counsel in the Pre-trial Memorandum improperly refers to these alleged repairs and/or problems as non-conformities which is also disputed by the Defendant, To the contrary, Defendant contends that the vehicle has performed appropriately and as expected by the consumer/Plaintiff in this case, Moreover, the vehicle has been repaired successfully when brought to subject dealerships for warranty repairs, It is Defendant's position that no breach of warranty has occurred and that no damages are appropriate under the Magnuson-Moss Act, the pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code and/or the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, -2- II . DAMAGIlS Defendant emphatically denies that damages exceed the applicable $25,000,00 arbitration limits in this case, Defendant has concurrently filed with this Pre-trial M~morandum a Motion to strike this matter from the trial list as the matter should be presented to an arbitration board for these reasons, Defendant refers this Honorable Court to its Motion for a detailed analysis and its reasoning as to why this matter should proceed before an arbitration board and not before a jury, While it is true that under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, a jury could find in favor of the Plaintiff and the Court, upon its discretion, could treble these damages if such appropriate factors are proven at trial, the amount in controversy when netted against the value of the vehicle as returned to Chrysler even after trebling by the Court would not exceed the applicable $25,000,00 arbitration limits, It is highly disputed that the Plaintiff will even set forth or put on any evidence to suggest that the Defendant has breached any standards or requirements under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade t'ractices and Consume!' Protection Law, III. ~BMENT AS TO PRINCIPAL ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND DAMAGES Defendant refers this Court to the above statements as well .s their Motion filed concurrently with this Pre-trial -3- 3, Doug McKenna of Chrysler Corporation and/or other Zone Technician who will inspect Plaintiff's vehicle 4, Defendant reserves the right to call those witnesses listed by the Plaintiff, 5, Defendant further reserves the right to bring into evidence cr introduce at trial any other witnesses who may oe discovered or become available between the date of this Memorandum and the time for trial, VI. EXHIBITS 1, Doug McKenna and/or Zone Technician's report 2, Chrysler's applicable warranty 3, Owner's manual for a 1995 Dodge Ram 250 4, Defendant reserves the right to use as an exhibit any exhibit listed by the Plaintiff, 5, Defendant further reserves the right to bring into evidence or introduce at trial any other exhibit which may be discovered or become applicable between the date of this Memorandum and the time for trial, VII . CURRENT STA'l'US or SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS Plaintiff has made a demand of a repurchase of the vehicle together with attorney's fees, unfortunately, Plaintiff has not yet itemized specific attorney's fees or indicated the amount to be deducted pursuant to usage of the vehicle if a -5- repurchase were in order, Defendant awaits the~e calculations and specific demand from the Plaintiff, Defendant has no authority to settle this case at this time, Only after the vehicle is inspected and such calculations in a more refined demand is submitted by the Plaintiff can Defendant make a decision as to an evaluation of this case, VIJ:X. OUTSTANDING ITEMS Defendant has filed concurrently with this Pre-trial Memorandum a Motion to strike this matter from the trial list, Defendant appreciates and requests consideration of that Motion by this Honorable Court, Moreover, Defendant objects to the listing of this case for trial as discovery is not yet complete, Defendant has yet to inspect Plaintiff's vehicle and has been attempting to do so over the past several weeks, In addition, Plaintiff's counsel has promised to turn over Plaintiff's exhibits 7 and 8 as well as other alleged repair orders and has llQt done so to date. All such repair orders were requested through discovery and have not ever been produced, Such inspection and document recover.y may lead to ultimate settlement negotiations, and it is requested for this re~son that the matter be removed from the trial list to allow -6- . collateral charges and attorney's fees," Defendant contends and has done so at the Pre-trial Conference that the amount in controversy in this case does not exceed the applicable $25,000,00 arbitration limits for Cumberland County, Defendant refers the Court to its Motion to strike this matter from the trial list and/or continue the action which is filed concurrently with this Pre-trial Memorandum of Law detailing the reasons why this matter should proceed before an arbitration board and not before a jury, Plaintiff's Complaint does detail several alleged problems and/or complaints with the 1995 Dodge purchased in Maryland. Plaintiff's counsel in the Pre-trial Memorandum improperly refers to these alleged repairs and/or problems as non-conformities which is also disputed by the Defendant. To the contrary, Defendant contends that the vehicle has performed appropriately and as expected by the consumer/Plaintiff in this case, Moreover, the vehicle has been repaired successfully when brought to subject dealerships for warranty repairs, It is Defendant's position that no breach of warranty has occurred and that no damages are appropriate under the Magnuson-Moss Act, the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code and/or the pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, -2- II. DAMAGES Defendant emphatically denies that damages exceed the applicable $25,000,00 arbitration limits in this case, Defendant has concurrently filed with this Pre-trial Memorandum a Motion to strike this matter from the trial list as the matter should be presented to an arbitration board for these reasons, Defendant refers this Honorable Court to its Motion for a detailed analysis and its reasoning as to why this matter should proceed before an arbitration board and not before a jury, While it is true that under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, a jury could find in favor of the Plaintiff and the Court, upon its discretion, could treble these damages if such appropriate factors are proven at trial, the amount in controvp.rsy when netted against the value of the vehicle as returned to Chrysler even after trebling by the Court would not exceed the applicable $25,000,00 arbitration limits. It is highly disputed that the plaintiff will even set forth or put on any evidence to suggest that the Defendant has breached any standards or requirements under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, III. STATEMENT AS TO PRINCIPAL ISSUES OF LIABILITY ~ DAMAGES Defendant refers this Court to the above statements as well as their Motion filed concurrently with this Pre-trial -3- repurchase were in order, Defendant awaits these calculations and specific demand from the Plaintiff, Defendant has no authority to settle this case at this time, Only after the vehicle is inspected and such calculations in a more refined demand is submitted by the Plaintiff can Defendant make a decision as to an evaluation of this case. VIII. OUTSTANDING ITEMS Defendant has filed concurrently with this Pre-trial Memorandum a Motion ~o strike this matter from the trial list, Defendant appreciates and requests consideration of that Motion by this Honorable Court, Moreover, Defendant objects to the listing.of this case for trial as discovery is not yet complete, Defendant has yet to inspect Plaintiff's vehicle and has been attempting to do so over the past several weeks, In addition, Plaintiff's counsel has promised to turn over Plaintiff's exhibits 7 and 8 as well as other alleged repair orders and has DQ1 done so to date, All such repair orders were requested through discovery and have not ever been produced, Such inspection and document recovery may lead to ultimate settlement negotiations, and it is requested for this reason that the matter be removed from the trial list to allow -6- v, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL LAW GEORGE SULLENBERGER, JR" Plaint if f CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant NO, 97-5328 ;~) ) I." ,') -It DEPENDANT'S. CHR:i'SLER CORPORATION. MOTION TO STRIKE MATTER FROM THE TRIAL LIST ! 1-'-1 ,;'-j , .,') " '" 1'1 .. ) by;"lInd'(' I) AND NOW, comes Defendant, Chrysler Corporation,. , through the undersigned counsel and respectfully requests" th'at ') --- this Honorable Court strike the above-captioned matter from the July 1998 trial list and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1, Plaintiff's counsel filed a Praecipe to place the above-captioned matter on the July, 1998 civil trial list in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas to proceed with trial,' 2, A Pre-trial Conference was held June 1'7, 1998 in Judge Oler's chambers with Defendant's counsel participating by telephonic conference thanks to the gracious permission of Judge Oler and his willingness to accommodate the parties, 3, This case involves an alleged breach of warranty and alleged violation of the Maanuson-Moss Federal Trade 'Defendant's counsel acknowledges receipt of a cover letter from Plaintiff's counsel indicating that three separate Praecipes were forwarded, including a Praecipe for this matter, however, has conf.irmed that only two Praecipes were received, excluding the Praecipe for this case, The undersigned counsel has no reason to dispute that Mr. Fineman did forward the Praecipe, however, continues the search to ensure that the Praecipe was received, Commission Warranty ImDrovement Act, the PennsYlyania Uniform Commercial code and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection L~, 4, During the Pre-trial Conference, Defendant's counsel expressed Chrysler Corporation's position that this matter should not proceed to trial, however, should proceed before an arbitration board based on the maximum amount in controversy in this case, 5, Although Defendant's counsel perhaps did not specifically raise the additional issue of uncompleted discovery, Defendants also respectfully request this Honorable Court remove this matter from the July, 1998 trial list to permit the parties additional time to complete discovery as DefenGant has several outstanding j,ssues through discovery which it must resolve prior to trial to permit a fair day in Court, 6. It is undisputed that the cost of the vehicle in question did not exceed approximately $29,308,00, 7, It is also undisputed that under any scenario whereby the Defendants are found liable and a verdict or decision is returned in favor of the Plaintiff, that the Plaintiff must return the vehicle if a repurcha.se is in order and is granted by the Court, ~, Williamson v, Chrvsler Corooration, United States District Court, 8astern District of Pennsylvania, May 6, 1997, 173 F,R,D. 131 (E,D, Pa, 1997); Shimskv v, Ford Motor -2- COmDany, 170 F,R,D, 125 (E,D, Pa, 1997) attached respectively as Exhibits "A" and "B", 8, A review of the appropriate automobile dealer's book regarding fair market values of domestic vehicles reveals that the fair market value or average retail value of the vehicle in question in this case is approximately $18,200,00, (Please see the attached excerpt from the Red Book attached and identified as Defendant's Exhibit nc,,), 9, In cases such as this, where the Plaintiff is awarded a repurchase of the vehicle, the manufacturer may also deduct a reasonable allowance for usage of the vehicle which can equal ten percent (10%) of the vehicle's purchase price or in this case, approximately $2,900.00, See, Pennsylvania Automobile Lemon Law as codified at Title 28, ~ 1955, 10, When evaluating damages in this case, the Court must take the purchase price of the vehicle or $29,308,00 and deduct the book value as presented above, as well as a reasonable allowance for usage of the vehicle, which would total $20,100.00, as the measure of damages. In this case, the amount would total $8,208,00, 11, Even if the Court were to treble the amount of the maximum award, the same would not exceed the applicable $25,000,00 arbitration limits, 12, An award could be given to the Plaintiff whereby, under a breach of warranty claim, Defendant, Chrysler Corporation -3- would be rp.quired to make the Plaintiff whole, The measure of damages under such a scenario is equal to the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have b~en if they had been as warranted, 13 P.S. !l 2714(b), 13, The case law in Pennsylvania is absolutely consistent that the only measure of damages for breach of warranty for the sale of goods is the difference between the value "as is" and "as warranted," AM PM Franchise Association v, Atlantic Richfield Company, 584 A,2d 915, 920 Pa, 1~90, Cober v, Corle, 610 A,2d 1036, 1040-41 (Pa, Super, 1992), K & C. Inc, v, Westinqhouse Electric CorD" 263 A,2d 390, 394 Pa, 1970, 14, The purchase price is not a relevant factor in the measure of damages under this scenario, Natalie Brothers Towing Service, Inc, v, Murray Ford, Inc" 41 0, & C,3d 224, 226 (1994), 15, Plaintiff's Complaint and c~ntral theory is that the vehicle suffers from a defective transmission and/or engine which by any stretch and/or measure of damages, even if trebled, could not exceed the applicable arbitration limits if Chrysler were required to pay the costs of a new transmission or new engine for this vehicle under the applicable law, 16, Finally, Defendant has not yet been afforded the opportunity to inspect Plaintiff's truck, 17, In addition, through discovery, Defendant has asked for each and every repair invoice, and in fact, Plaintiff's -4- WII.J.IAMSON v, cllltYSU:1t COIt\', 1:11 ..:u. ...In l.lU). u, cr~D.r.- 1"7) Kemp md.al, Ie nl)UIIIl~ 1'1K.', rTIWill)l.' dl>iIUl.'l. StllCCY WII.UAMSON "t. 7:l1'.S. ~ :!(1I-1,'l H'"I. v, a, Federol Court. ",",:~IK In ewcull1Un~ lLHI1lunt \n CtmlrOYt!MiY U) dl!l.A~nllinl! whl.'UI('r juritillidl'IllUl minlnlum 11' md in divcnlity lleUml hlL'wd on mf)l.ur Yl'hl. ell! h:mon h\w, rcu.",olUlhh! ullorncy rt'(!t) cun not ex"",,,) IUnount thnt c<>uld l"I.<!nUlllly be recovered; nf) rcllH(muhlc pCrH1Jn would spend tllt! C(lulvalcnt wnllunl tAl vindicate II purely l'Ct)J1ll1nic lotiM, Ilnd there must be KlJme ra- Uonol reluUonsblp hctwl",n amount or l"'>- nomic 10'" IlIld eX\M,nditures exhausted \ty' ing to rl'Coup that 1080. 4, Federal Courtll ~340,\ Amount In c<Jn\.rOvel'llY c<Juld not, t.o a lego! ccrWnty, uppronch jurilldicUono! mini. mum ror dive1'1llty ""Uon made under state mot.or vehicle lemon law, IlIld thos, c<Jurt did not have 6ubject-motter jurilldicUon over clwm, where bllSe I'Cc<lvery figure or the ve- hicle, purchllSe price minus murket vwue or vehicle minus deducUon ror UHe or vehicle prior to nn;l rcpo.ir, wo.'\ $6,007, as even lrohlinl( that fih'\lre PUl'llUllllt t.o slJ1tute would incrca.'">c huse t..o $20,9<)1 I and reu.o;onnblc atr t.orney rees would never exceed $:ro,O'.Jll. 7:\ P,S, ~ 201-1 et seq. Cl\lt YSUm COIU'OItA'l'ION, Civil Aetlon No, l/fi-602 I, lJlliwd Sll1U" \!c.lrkt cou~ KIl. \'eIlIlHylvunlo. MllY II, tU'J7. l'urch....er or moU>r vehicle hnlUgbt di- yersity action unlh~r Klute lemon law and alleged that dlUlIOl(eH exceeded jur\..<licUonw minimum or $Ii,OOO,OI. 'l'he Dilltrlct Court, Dalzell, J., held that: (I) murket vwue or vehicle hod U> he deduel.<!d rrom purch...,e price In order t.o ...,cerWn IUnount in contro- VCJ'1ly; (2) re...,onllhle utt.orney rl'CS could nev- er exceed economic 1088; and (:1) bused on hose figure ewculotlon or $Ii,l/fi7, umount In con\.rOvel'llY coold not, t.o a Io'houl cerWnty, Ipproacb jurisdlctinnol minimum. DlHml,"ed for Illl'k or Huhject.mottH jur. illdicUon. IIIlIt a joint the .:o1ll101. imavera ill . eert1Iica- be entry or \, .'ode...1 CuurtH >l?ar.4, aG9 JurisdicUonw umount tbat ploinUrr Illleg- es in dlvernity action control" unleHll dcfen. dllllt shows t.o u lel(111 cerWnty thnt the chllm ~ lnadequate; howl!vcr, disU-ict court is not bound by complaint's conclu"ory wlegaUoM IIId muy look throu~h wlegoUons to see if plalnUrr has Hup[l<lrtod them by competent proor by II pre[l<lnderllllcc or the evidence. , 2. Federal Courtll ~340.1 , Cwculntlon or IlIllount In con\.rOve"'j t.o determine whether jurl"dlcUonw minimum c. met In dlve1'1llty acUon by mot.or vehicle pur- chaser under stote lemon law requires that market value or vehicle be deducted rrom 'purchlllle price, where vwuc ill relldily ""cer. tainable and purch....er would hnve to surrcn- "'r car in order to get purchlll\e price bock der lemon law; murket vwue or vehicle ean ISCCrWned b....ed on >>.ffidavit or qunlified , dlviduw who can credibly tesUry L' to vehl- tie'. prCllent vwue, and value or ',ehiele ror Crulg Thor Kimmel, Blue Bell, pA, ror Pl:lIntlrr. James W. Stevens, Marshall, Dcnnehey, Wurner, Coleman IlIld G<>ggln, Philadelphia, P A. ror DerendllllL the ACM r.' motiQt\.'\ Bradshaw" ''I granted, rOl' prebial MEMORANDUM DALZELl" Dilltrlct Judge, We urc here prcaented with the quesUon whether we have dlve...ity jurlsdicUon over the subjed mat.ter or plwnUrrs lemon law action. The plainUrr, Stacey Williamson, me<! this lemon Illw clllle on July 15, 1996, alleging thllt the damages to which .he ill entitled in \hill dlvernity c...,e excc.,ded the then.JurilldlcUon. nI minimum or $50,000.01.1 Speclfieally, WiI. . As WII: nolcd In IIll(trty \I, Chtvrnt" A{f)rOf' DIV, No, q~-,H24, 1996 WI. 287276, at -, n 1 m.D.'a, May la, 1996), "Klmmtl &: Silverman, P.C. alleln in every lemon law complaint thai 1:\2 173 n:Ut:ltAI. ItlJU:S ut:CISION:'i liurmllJll CtmtJ!lllh, lllllt tll'r lJrl.'uch of w"rru.u' ty cI.illl equolH $:!'I,lrl~.HI), whkh, WiIlIIIIIIHon tU'KlH!K, couhl be.' lrl!hled u"lh'r uw Pl'nntlyl. vlUllll lJnfu.lr 'l'nlth' Prul'U('I'K !llltl ClIlJKUIIH'r Protection Luw, 7:1 Pll.~tUt. ~ ~tll-l, d KI~lr, lhUB exc~ecUnK thl' llppllcuhll' jurls1lkti1lnal minimum. Sri' Pl.'" Mpl1I. of Luw ut fl. Wl'. oruerl.!cl t)1I' pUl'tll'!' to nil' ItttllTlurundl1 1)( law nn lllP i~H'W o( OUf jUr\HtlIl'Uflll OVl'r the 6uhjccl ml~U,t'r of lhh, l'aM', unci WI~ hd" tL heurhlK tod.y on the I"ue. (I) Whl\c th" jurlHdktlolml ulllount plain. tiCr wh,!K(~li cl)lItrl)l~ unlel>li tIll' tldendlLlIl tihows "to 11 h.'1{111 l.'f.rtainty" that lh... churn Iii Inudequntc, SL I'uul Ml!n~u.ry /1I11i'mnilll (,'0. v. Red Cab Co., :lu:! lJ.S. 2I!:1, Wi, r>!l H.C\.. 686, 600, 82 I.. Ed. 81r, (\ ~:IH), we .re not bound by the l'Omplllinl'K l'OnclU8f)ry lllll~gu+ tions, but may I<.,k thruugh them to see Ir pluinUrr h.... suppo,,",d "them by competent proof ." by 11 preponderance of evidence," McNutt v. Gcncrul MolJ)rs Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S, 178, IH~, fJfi H.C\.. 780, 7M, 80 ("t:d, 1136 (1936). A brier recilJ1tion of th" undl"pul.<!d 1II0l.<!rI- w roct. of thlH cose will scrve t.o cxplain our disposition of the juriHdicUonol ISHue. On April 81 Im.ml Williamson Ilurcha.<:,cd 11 lwr) Dodge N"un for $17,2W,.HI. Of the purch...,e there is mure than ~5l),OOO in conlruverbY, bUl we question huw ollen, III (a!.:t, lllilt is true," Our Court o( Appelll.. \hllre~ our concern: "(TIhere 1\ !lerlou\ rCllson lO question whelher Mr. Silverman vlulatcd lhe constralnt"i of Rule II of the Federal Rulc!I of Civil Plocedure by IU5ert- Inl( ~ha1 the amount In conlroveny In 1hb ca\e e,,"(eeded \50,000" 11l1(my \I. Chtvroltt Motor [JIY., No, 96-1540, !lltp op, at 25 11. 9 (3& Cir, May 5, 1997), IJI1'K, 1I1/(err'j Y. Chevrolet Motor Div., No. 95-5124, 1996 Wl 231276 ([,D.PII. May 30, 1996). 1. 'The wholtsale value or 8 similarly equipped 1995 Doose Nt.on to the 1rade, accordlns to Lhe National Auto Re\carch Black Book. was be. ~wctn $9,450.00 and $10,450.00, in July of 1996. Set Affidavit of Matthew Zlel~e, Chrysler Arbltra. 1Ion Manaser, at , 24, and his tesUmony. nlc Automobile Red Book h'ilS the wholesale value of Ms. Williamson'" car at SI0,500 as of June: 30, 1996. Stt ul Nonethele:...., WI! use an even lower valut! became or 1ht: nel!d to remov~ an aft"r.markt:t alllflTl !ly~,tcrn from the car at I~H,UC, and replace iI.. el(':clrkal body harne55, Su id. at , 2\. Our Court of Appeal.. in llil(trty \I Chevmftt Motor Vw. No 9(')-.11)40, slip op. at 15 Od Ur pril'''', hill' I'llil] $:~llOO as WI out'(jf.t)Q(~k(!t ch)wnpaYII\I'nt, utili rll\llJ\l..'I~d the $1",lor~.81 lmhul('I'. A (l!W month:; Ilfl.t!r flur('hWiin~ t.h~ NPIJlll WUllllfTIHOIJ em NClVcrnher tH, 1~J7 had U1l' l'ar rl'llalrt~d felr till' linil o( what wl)Uld l}(_' rivp Urnl'l;. WUlhullHlJn clahllli tlHll IIhe has III IIIlU' Int'llITed Il t.ot.al o( $H,OfU ,O() In rimuwl' d\l\"'~I'K, Sl'f' 1'l.'K Ml'lll, Ilf Luw ul r" 121 Till' lllllllunl In ('liIlu'IVl'rhY hl!rl' muy I)I~ cl1kullltJ,tl ufIIlpr the Ul'llrlH1ch we t.ook in Shim.,ky lI. F,ml M"lor (,'0, 17ll F.lt.Il. 121') <E.l).I'II.I\~17). IIP,'"uHe the vlllue of WH. HarnlilJl\'K car I:; n~lld\ly II.",cert.u.1nahtc- $X,lJ(~ll .-luHI tillll'l.'l under the lemon lawl WilIilllllson wenllel hUVI! hlulto tmrrcndl'r the cn.r in ordl'r U) Ret the (Iurchu.'\e price hack,. it Is ,,"'per to, d"duct the m...ket vwue or the car In clrfll'r U) llsccrtu.1n lhe amount in con. troven<y In U,IH Cll..e, See Shim.:lky, 170 F.lt.Il. at l~f;-27; see also I1orl.<m v. ford Motor Co., No. 9f>-lf>l3 (E.D,!'o. Feb. 25, 1\I'J7) (Onler); IUcoro /lilfmy v. Chevrolet Molor Iliv., No. 9f,..IMO, sUp op. .t 13, 116 F,:ld 4fk~ Gl<l Clr. M.y 6, 1997) (endo1'1ling "net economic gain" approuch of reducing the amount pluintlrrs m.y recover by the "rulr market, retail vwue or the vehicle turned In hy the" plaintiff H),' ofJ'g, //iI/my v. Chevrolet Motor /liv., No. ~r..-m24, 19'.16 WI. 287276, at May 5. 1997) yc\tcrJay t:lldt)r~eJ 1he IIPllfOIli;h we took in 1/11(my v. Chtvroltr Molor /)iv., No. 9~.1124, 1996 Wl 2.7276 IE.D.Pa. Mar 30, 11)1)6), which wt: u~e here, of looking 10 the afndavit of a quaHfied Individual who (~an credi. bly te!)tify a~ to tlle present value of the car plaintiff mus1 return to the defendant In order 10 rc!.:ovcr anything In a lemon law case. Judse Nygaurd, writlns for a unllnlrnous panel, in llii. (aty held thai the ust: of 8n affidavit from GM', "c;usttlmer a...shtance manage" 1hot 1he averase relail value In the Irea11!r Philadelphia arca of · 1995 Chevrolet Lumina, with the same futures and mileage a."i thl! lUlfert)'" cal., Is SI6,350/' slip op. a' 15, W!U entirety proper and character. Iled Kimmel &I Silverman's arsumcnt that "it was Impossible to arrive a1 a fair market retail value of tilt: car" as "wphbtlcal," id. at 17. 3. "lTlhe manufacturer shall. . accept return or tht: vehide from 1hl! purchuer and rclund to the purchaser 1he fult purcha5c pike, Including all collateral chargts, Ius a reawnable allowance fol' the purtha\er's u\e of lhe vehicle," 73 P.. StA1. ~ 19~5. 4, .litt Kmtra/l'j ,J at 13-11 &I n. I) '6 (t:.Il.l'.. May 311 _Kl'H >>.n! bllM.>d on with a readlly-...'lC> then we may caleu conndenr.'t! whIt l WCrt!,")i SubtT \I. ~78, r,sr) n. 7 (ac bcc.uHe "plaintiff I the mDJlurudurcr ment of any durna court, on remand, the amount in conI Iy, be rc<luced to · ..hlcle when it III I 13,4) The bas. is $6,007,01,' an' amoun~ we waul, $20,901.03 against attorney's rccs, would ncvp,r exec< 5, 517,201.BI tl $&,'100.00 Ithe v. (use of car poor IOC per mile, sa 01 \..aw0l5). ,.,. Molor DiY., No. ' IE. D.P. May 31 CI,. M'r 5, 1997 metal if nothtn. the amount plBIr 6. To rehcane 0 Motor Div., No. (E.D.P.. May 3 op.OJ.Cir, Ma reasonable per $20,901.03 In and vindicate I no reasonable , feclto win S: i 1540, ,lip op. , l 011 Its valuatlo ~ litlaation as $" '; eel that no rei ..'- almosl $1l,OC 1 10&0 01 that ., :.,101ne ntlQnal L,of an econor Musled uylr 1 whcre . p'ah' ~dI.trict cour1 .1 nllOn.ble 'r n~lntema1 quo , Punhcrmo ~.. doubt ...... hillin, .lIp"". at 21 !:ooune nd tf , nl......IH ..ltU 'Ii (l';,IJ,l'll. Mny :lil, Hr,JH) ("Whl'n' UII' IlwlI U~I'~ llrl' 1m......" 0tJ Illh~, to laJl.~lbh' pl'lllwrty with II rl'luIlIYIl:il'l'rtainuhll' tllurkl'l vl~hJl', UIl'II WI' lIIay t'llklllatl' wilh II hl~h It'y('1 1)( l,'llllndl'fll'l' what thl' n'ILJ wlJrltl Itl111HlW'li wl'n'."); ."ifllwr I' ('hry,'ll,'r t.'fJf7'" 10,1 Val! ['7H, (>>00,.,[, II. 7 ell! ('ir, It1.fl) (hl)ldinv: thal 1~'I.'IUJ:'1' "plaintiff lrlll:it rl'luMl UIL' vl'hkll' to llll' IIIIUlIJrlll.'lurl'r in qrdl'r lA) n~celVl.' Jlay. nWllt ..r llll)' da/lla~I's awnrtlt'd/' lhl! dhitrkt t:l/urt, 1J/l n'/Ilulld, 1II11:il dl'lA.'Mnine "whl!thl'f tl\l' 1I111ollnt ill j'IJllll'I/Vl'h;y should, Ilccllnllny:. Iy, 1)1' rt'dlll'l'd tn !l{'I.'IJlUll (IIr 111L' vulu!! C)( Uw ','('hkll' wl]l'n it i:; rPlurnf'd"), (:1,.1 I Till' hll...." , tiw.1re (or this cwculutiotl b $li,!.Hi'l.Ol,6 IlIId Wl'fe we to trl'hll! t.hl:~ Umqlmt, WI' wlJuld :;lill have a huse O( only $,:!O,UtJ 1 ,0:1 Hj.{aifl:.t which lA) add 0. 1"ClL.'1oJlable utllJfrH'y's (l'f'S. Lt'g'ul fees in thlH CfLHC woulll nl'\'I'f ('xCI'I'd $~J,OW{,98,' 5, S 17 ,20'i8 I Ilht: pur..:ha~e price) minus S8,9l)0 O<l (lb... value or the car) minus S1.338.00 (UH' l}f (ilr prior tll nr\t rcpllir-IO,lJ8 milc:s al It)( 1'M.'lllllk \1'(' 11 IJaStut. ~ 1955; 1'1'5 Mem. uf !.IIW III 5) A~ wc llllted In Ililr~rty v. C'ltvt1J/l't hlo(or 111\", Nil, lj'j -'iU4, 1996 WL 287216, 111 '2 (ED.l'a May ]0, (996), a/fd, Nn. 96-1540 Od lIr May'i, I 'J'J7), thc value o( lhe Color, "(or scrap llH'1lI1 if Ilolhillll clw," mmt be deducted (rom tl., 11lJl<!11I11 pl.lintlft Illay recOVer. 6, I'll 11:111',11 ",.' 11111 holdinH in Ihtrary v. C11('\,'nJlt'l .\10)('" /In , NIl 'I~ 'i \24, jtN6 WI. 287276, at -(, C1:t> 1'.. r-oby II), 1-1')6), aiI'll, No. 96-1'i40, .~ltp op (hi (II M.IY 'i, 1')'17): We du not bdicve ally n.'[l\orwhk' Pt'l\llU wOllld eV!:r spend more Ihull UO,liUlln in Il'H;11 fc.'l'!i to recovler S20,901.0.1 an.! "in.!t..lItt' Ill) IItla', Illlerc~t. We are certuin nl} rt:Il\'lllable 1'1.'l\on would PIlY $29,098.98 in kt'\ to Will S2U,'j()1,0.1 .~t', Wlr"ty, No. 96- 1'i40, \ltp op atl} Od elr. May 5,1997) ("U.Ised 011 m \'allaatt'lIl of Ihe nel econumk gain of tl1l.' Ittlgatl\J11 a.. ~4,070HO. Ihe dhlr\c\ COUI1 condwl. cd fhal n'l rcu\tl/luhle penon would hll\'': spenl _llno\1 SIJ,OOI) 10 vindicllt( . purel)' economic lo~~ of Ihut anHlunl. We aKree. 'nlere mUlit be SOllie rllllflllul rclatiomhlp between lhe amount (If an c(ooomic hl~!\ and I.he upc:nditul'1:s u. hau\ted trylll~ to re(()up that 1055. Indeed, where a plaintifr ad,ieve!\ only limited success, a di\lrkt COUll \hould award only thllt amount ru.\onahlc in rclatlOn to the re!\ullA obtained,") /internal Cjllotall'lIl mark\ and citation omitted) ,"urthf'rnlflll" '!Ilr Cnurt of Appeals hu ca.\t gra\'l' dtlllbt on 1111.' "craelty of Kimmel & SII\'er. Iflan\ bllllnll, plurtiLe"l, IlItr~rty, Nt). 96-.1540, ,Iip op, at 21 nd [ir May 5, 19')7) ("Indeed, WI' comll\end the pUlknt dfon of the district court ...,., I II t' U I'.. I",. '1'111' n,'(IInl il. umunhiK\IlIW, that It.I' IUllrllwl in COlllr"1JVl'l'1iY ill thb flllIllA'f rUflfJllt npprou.dl U\I' jllrbdil'lilJllIlI rninimlJlII.1 WI' UlIJ:i firlllu. 11 h'~ull'l'rtalllty Ull.At Uw IUllflllnt III ('olll.r1)VI'rny, (~Vl'n with lrl'hlilJ.~ nrllt n'n IirJ/llllJll' uttJlMwy't; (1~I'K, l'lJuld f1llt lu'n' rl'lu'h :f,!'~),f)l)().I)l, Ac~')nJinIf,IYI WI' rtlJll that WI' lael~ jUri:,dkllon OVf'r thl' tillhjl~('t 1Il1111.l'f or lhi:; CIL<;l', All IIflJlftJpriab' Ofdl'f rl,ll"wl', ()f/JJf:11 AN 1l NOW, this lith ll"y IIr May, lUU7, nftt'f 1\ hl'winK in open Court this urLCMlO()II, IInd UpfJll considerution uf plainUrrH UlI!nJ',. rluulurn flf luw lI.nd affidavit In tiUl'r)f)rt IIr diven:.:ity juriHdiction, defl'rHhmt't; fPspOnSt' lht'rclo o.nd IlccompWlyinJt o.J'lidavitJ IUld In uccordancc wilh the accompanyinK Memoran- dUlll, it b herehy OIt1lt:Jlt:ll that: 10 o.nive at a reasonable award o( atlllmey!)' fc:c\ nlJtwltl,!tlandlng the total lad of I real billing ~y~tem ant! IIIdequatc record.kcl'ping prucedurc\ dCn\omtruled by [Kimmel] & SlIvcnllan"); ltt at.m id. Ilt 24 ("Morellver, we aiM) ntHe that Ihere I!) additional evidence In thc reco::d lhat rai~<:~ serious questions abuut plail\tiff\' coun. ~d'5 verudly and conduct throughoutlhe cou,~t: of thi'i case,"); id. at 25 n. t} ("[WJe ((lIIc1udc that the di!ltrlcl COllrt wU.\ morl.' than justified ill pl.u:inE little confidc.'ncc in lhl' vnudty or plalll' tilh' l'OUlI\CI.") Su \lIp'rl 11 I (Rull' II !)IUH' linll\) 7, Altl'rllutively, Ir WI.' cui ttuuugh plaintilf\ up. pruuch 1.0 view thc economic rl'a!it)' of the trom. ad!lJ/1 here. the record i!l undi!llllJled thai Wil. llarmon's total out.of.pockct l.!xpendilurc for the o;ar Is 01. most $11,161.04-S3,IOO,OO (down pay. tlll'nt) plus S8.061.04 (ocl.:lucd finalll"c and prin. ciplll churgc.~). We note thut the amount or rinancc chargc\ ha~. !\hl(C the dalc of the arbitra. lion award (February II), lx'en entircly in plain. till's control: surrender of the car .....ould imme. Jlatdy cut ofT further IIIccrual Ilf such charge~ nut eVlen I( we wc:re to trcblle the unadJu!itcd out. of.pocket figure,", We would have a theoretical base o( only $33,483.12 ,galnst which to add I r('asonable attorney's (ce!\. Rell...onable attor. ney's ft'es could nol por....ibly reach S16,'5lb.89 where it ellceeds the ba~ 105"1 by 48%; no ration- al economic i\ctor would undertake such a fool. hh trall!\actlon. SU .supra n, 6; .~u atw Nt{f v C;mtral Mo(or,~ Corp" 163 F.R,[), -478 (E[)PIl 199'5) It Is therefore dear that Ihe amount in (ontroveny In this ca~ dOIe!\ 111)( apprcHI<..:h the juri.~dicllonal m'nimum e\'en undcr thi.. far more generous (and economically unlikely) method of cakulallon. 12li 171) t'J-:m:H^J. I\III.ES 1lJ-:('ISIONS n~'Ul)11 Willi nll'll, IIlld tJ1WI 1Ii\:'" fi~;lln' rlJJ' cllUllll~t' l'nll~uII\U<)1l Will; 01111' VI,I;<<)I,r.o, wtlkll (-'ould Ill' lrl'l,!t'tl undt'r 1.1'11I111I Law, ~h lJ.:-\.C.A. ~ Jaa~i 7:1 P.:-\. ~ W[.f,. UIl11U1 (;I.'l'h..,I', PlIwl'r & tip,.))I'r, P,c., Mil <1111, I'A, r"r plulntlrr. Honald ~. YUl'lI, Dollls l~ HI.llly, }I,A., Liv- iJlKlitJm, N.J. (or cldl'lulunl. Mf:MOUAN/II/M IlAL7.J-:LL, lJlHtrlct Judge, MI.<!r UlC October 2.1, IU'Jtl arbltratlun or t111H lemon IllW CWK\ ddl.'ndanl filed n de. mund (or trial ri,' 'WIX) purlmanl to Local It.Clv,l'. 0:1,2,7. On Novembcr 21), I!l'Jtl, pri- or w setting tht! malleI' for trial, We ontered the (lllrtic6 to file memoranda "odtlr(,HRln~ tile Court's JuriRdicl10n over UU~ suhject mat- ter in view of Ule market value reduction Ule ullt'g-t'd defect ha.<; cau:wd ltl plainUrrs car", Upon congidl'raUon of Uw "artit's' ITll'tIIOrnn. da, It bl'canw Bl'parentthat It Wl1~ 11l'\'l'f):mr,y to have an evidentiary hl'arill~~, whil'h Wl' held on Decemher 2:1, HJ\~;, A" a result or this activity, the dcrendant lJ1ke, tilC poslUon UlIlt we lack juri,dlcUon over Ole subject mat~r. For Uw reasons timl (ollow, we a~'r('l'. PI:untlrr Jam"s Shlmsky IIIl<'v,eH tllIll UI<' damages to whl~h he is ('ntltll'd in this diver. slty acUon exceed the jurlsdlcUonal mini- mum, Complolnt 13. Specifically, Shim sky claims that his "Lemon Law damagcs In this situaUon (without any att.omey rees, finance charges, and without exemplary dam'ges un- der the [Penll8ylvania Unrolr Trade PracUces and Consumer ProtecUon Law, 73 I',S. ~ 201-1 .1 s.q.)) equals U10 $16,:130.00 pur- chase price or the vehicle plus $759.00 In sales taxes and $f32.50 In <!ocument and title rees plus finance charv,es," PI.Mem. at 4Ul unnumbered page. [t J While the jurisdlcUonal amount ploln- urr slleges con\tols unle" the defendant shows "t.o a legal certainty" that the claim Is Inadeqoate, S~ I'aul Mercury Inde",nity CO. I. Of perhaps historical inlC!rtsl. at tht lirnt or Ult arbllralilln on Ot:lober 2.1. 1996. lhe! Ford Con. "- Ill'" CI/IJ ('1/" aila 1/.:-1. ~!h:~, v..1.i, r.."" H.CL r"loiIl, rl:~O, k~ I..Ed. H-Ifl (Wa'''j, WI' art' 1J1lt l"JUlld lJy till' l'llIIIIJlaint'" l'l)lll'iu:'IIr,y lllh.'v,a- UOIlIi, bUl lIIa>' II)l)h lhrIHI~~h UII'1II to Hi't.' It plalnlJtf ha.'t llUppIJrtf.'d "tJWIII h)' l'ompt'u"flt IJrl)I)( hy Ii Pfl'IMHlth,rtLllCl' o( cvidt!t\('ell, M,","lutt tI. G,'u,'nrl Mlltm'li A"I'I'lJtm/l'" ('ory!., 29H U.S, 17H, IH\!, r..; KCt. 7hil, 7W" hI) I..Ed. llar) OU:lI\); tff',' 11/,0;0 NI'i,'ffltl 1', I\",'/i'f, 4M F,2d 2I>\!, 2l,1-(~; (ad Clr.1\I7IJ. 12] In feliIMm~L' U) plaintifrli 1I11egatiol\s, ddl'ndant Ford Motor COflllJl\IIY ~orre('Uy notes UIlIt. Shhnsky hali mi!'lnwrprt'tcd till' lemon law damages proviHion, which pfovidcs Umt "t.hl' manu(acturcr f1hall accepl fe- turn or tJl(' vehlcll' from Oil' IlIJrchasl'r and reCund to U\(~ Jll1rdlll~l'r Ow (ull pl1fcha.'ic price. '"dueling 011 ('olJatf~ral dJar~('s, less a fl'll::lOnnhle a.1I0WllIICl' (or OJ(' (H1rChnRCr'B Use or the vehicle", 7:l I'Il.St.at.Ann. ~ 19r>5. TI1US, a plalntirr Ilk" Shl'lISky recoives back his purchusc pnce, Inti must liurrrndl'r OJ(' car, a dl'ductloJl. It:-; WP "hall lihl)w, of a readlly-nl'cl'rtainahlt' vahw. At t.he J}t'('l'mhl'f :!:l hl'arinv, llH' Il:irti('s ,Upulated Ulol ShirnHky In fact paid $16,- 3:10.00 ror hiH 1\1% Ford Conluur, Model GL, N.T. at:t. TOJ{clhl'r with tmlt'::' tax, title (ee, Bnd doculJlcllloiry fCl', HhimRky't; tJ)t..al out-of. pocket expenditure (Of the ca.r was $17" 151.00, He,' N.T. at a-I cljRtinv, co,t" tow,lIlnv, $17,101.50). At Ow hearing, Ford'/i l'xprrl witneAs, Richard WOYlllwkh, I.<!,Ufied UIOt plaintiff was unhappy with a "lJu7.zlng noisc" during acceleration. Mr. Woytow\ch confinned thal, when he road wswd the Contour, there was indeed a 'bUZ1/Ul.z type or noise", N.T, at 46, at IliOO t.o 2400 r,p.rn. Mr, Woytowich alBo tesUfied that the problem with tile Contour would be fll<ed by replacing the engine's Ex. haust Gas Re~irculntion Vacuum H.cgulator Solenoid ("f:VIt"), N.T, at 41\-.19. Ae<ordlng to him, tJw t'o!\l (or labor and part for the replacemenl or the EVil would be $75.00, N.T, at 52. Although Mr. Woytowich w,tlfied that U,e minimum aucUon value or UIO subject cor at aucUon would be $1O,U,O.OO,' N,T. at (,0, he t'ont'eded that thili value was as o( 0,(' No- lour had 7.~68 milc5 nn il. N,T. al 5 SAItKO v, l'ENN-Dt:1- Illltt:C'I'OItY co, l'I~ul70 r.IlD, &11 (E.n.... ''''1 vembcr 2f), 1990 edition or tilt! N.A.n,A. hmltJO IBW, hl' mul'tl Hurrendl'r hl~ Cllr in flU!ue Book", which dOCR not rclnlc to Uw order ll) Kl!l the IJUrchotlt' price hack, it hI, value of the car WI of Ule Umc Ule complaint proper to deduct UIL' mllrkl!L YBlut! or t.he cllr wa' filed. namely, May :!ii, 1\l'J(). WiU,'lUt in 'loesUon .. or U,e date of filing w deter- objection. J.'ord WllS grnlll.A.~d lcuNe to fill' Il minI.' till' lUlu)Unl in ~{mtr()Yl'rHY. The base IUPI,lemental affidavit of Mr. Woywwich to figure, for U,I, <1I1<lllation. IH $5,IIO\.UO ($17,- ",I forth the value of U,e cur according to tile 151.60 millllH $11,MO.oo). If we w"re to lte. "D1ue Book" publlshl'<l neurest May 28. 1900. ble this IUIII, we would sUII have a basc or II turns out Ulat UIO May la, IWlI "llIue only $1U,l101.60 aguillst which t.o udd a rea. nook" Bhows that Ule car's value at UlBl time aonu.blc attorneys fee. Tu bl! reasonable, w.. $11,660,00, WOy1.ow!ch arr, at' 7, su<h a ree could not pOHHibly l'quul six times It ill quite dear, and undisputed by Mr, the market 10'" or doublc thc trebled Woyt.owich's te.timony, thut the figore in the amount. Ste Neff v. GefumU Motors Corp., "Blue Book" consUtutes a minimum price a 16.1 F,IUl. 478 (Kll.l'a.I995); llilfmy v. dealer ean expect at an aur.tion t.o the trade Chnrol.et Motor Viv., 1900 WI- 287276 of the eur in que.Uon, Aecordlng to hi. (E,D.r.. May 30, 1996),' un,ontrovert.ed te.Umony, the price. listed In This record UIU. leave. no doubt that, the "Blu. Book" urc b..ed upon actowltans- taking even the mo.t conservaUvc value,' the IcUon price! at weekly auction. that ure amount In conltoversy In thI. c..c docs not 1lmIu;:t to the trade. AA .uch, the "Blue approuch $50,000.01. und '0 we find that Book prlc.. ur. both corrent and con.erva- d.r.ndant has met Ill! burden or proving t.o a \.lve, the latter in the .en.e that U,e price legal certulnty thai the amount In controver- repre..nta a dealer'. wor.k..e e<onomlc 'y, .ven with trebling and re..onabl. att.or- occna,'io If he cannot sell a car to the public y' r II t d un 000 ,. ne s Cl'5, COil ( nf) excee Cl<1V1 . ^-'!o a orr hi. lot wiU,in thirty days or i~, return. It ~ d th t I k' 'dl ti NT t 22-2.1 rcsu ,Wl) IIn a we ac JunR c on over . ,a ' the sllhject matter or thl. dispul.<!. Given Ole undisputed reallUes of Uw mar- kct Mr. Woyt.owich described, we arc rorU. fied in our view that our Rcd Cab-McNutt enterprise in the lemon law context ill dlfrer- ent in kind rrom what it would be in, .ay, a ,... involving bodily injury. Clearly, only a jory eun apprw.e the value or Ilain and .ur- rerlng, 10.. or .I\loyment or life, .nd .imllar 10...., The record here .hows that, by con- tr..t, the murkct constantly make. apprw.- aI. or 10.. or the .ubje<t property, and that lueh apprai.al. are r.adily ..certulnabl., We may ther.rore ..rely rely upon thoee mark.t-determlned value. in di.churglng our duty or as.urlng that w. have jorlsdie\.lon ov.r the .ubject matter or 8ueh .ulll!, B.caUllc the value or Shlm.ky'1 ear i. readily ascertulnable. and .inee. under the Il8 8,C~ are not y a1lella. to_If IltIJIClent vidence", ....Corp., 80 L.Ed, 11/,." 451 Ieptions, correc:tly reted the ,provides oecept rc- _and purclw. .. Ie.. a uer'1 use . t 1966. !ivea back 'StIller the _, or a he parIl.. paid $16,- Mod.1 GL, .. title ree. otaI OlIt.<lr- ..... $17,- .tII totalUng rt wltn.... 1& p\alnutr 1M" during "",ed that. . there was N,T, at 46, 10wIeh also .. Contour 1IJI\De" Ex- , ResuIator Aeeordlng JUt tor the ba $76,00, lad that the iIIJeet .... at T, at 60, he ot the No- 2. To be r.recl5c. 10 re~h $50,000.01. the counsel ree wou d have 10 be Sll, 195,51, which is 5.93 lime. the $5,601.50 market 10M and 1.98 times the trebled amount of $16.804.50 1, We I'y "mo" cOI\Ie'""ltl'Ve" btc.usc we ho...e made no "reasonable aUowance" for the ptaln dfr, "w.e or the v.hlde" liven the undlaputed ruth)' !.hat he II Ius; u of Oc.tober 23. 1996 had driven the car 7 ,~68 miles. Stt n, I, luprG. The record deled not dlsclo!oe the mllule on the c.r " 127 . o \U'"YIotIl""1I1ot Shllron K, SARKO, )'Ialntltt, v, PENN-\lt:I, nlltECTOItY COMPANY, Derendant. Civil MUon No. 96-1428, United Stale. Distrlcl Court, E,D, Penn.ylvllllia, Jan. 22, 1997. FOlmer employee brought Amerlean. wiU, DisabillUe. Act (ADA) action alleging ;).'\ of ,he date of ming. It leems reason.ble to u,ume that (he ....Iue of ,I. monw' u.w of . 517,151 car It least equals the nnance charles pllllntiff SI)'I he has Incurred. which he reporu were ".pproll.lmllely 51.000" as of the dlte hil coun~1 filed his memorandum on lhl.s I.saue. PI.Mem. It 4th unnumbered pile. Presumabl)', as of Mil)' U, 1996. Ihole charlea would be half ,hi, lliMned lum ** Z0' 3DtId ~./JlJ. *. . lai~ ;~ IIII nil! I !~ ~B n ~! n. g~~ I, en! ~~ g~1I nIl ~~~~ I B~ ~~ ;~ ~1 n H~ 'il ~~~~ ~; ~'~I RI~~ II~~I ~ _5~ D~ ~@ IB n ~~ II ~~~~ ~~ ~nR un ;;~: ~-~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ :~; .a l I iii ~ ~i ~ a I' ~n n uulnls ,!. 1 ~'! ~ ~I! 33aa=a3g~aa3 sa33 1 iab33u3a!3a~33m3~ aa 11 lii~~I~II!ia~la!~61iiI6B~g~lilw!I~~!a~I!~li~~~~ i I S~Bg~! ~Rftl ~~~~ i~~hii~~! ~~ ~~ ~~ ~= ~I ~~ i II ~f91 ~~. o~ai ~fal ~~5151~nu il ~~ p~ ~~ 9~ p~ ~~ :/ I ~ ~~~i'! ~* ;!.il~ ii~lt~ Ii - ii ~~ .~ ~~ lJ~ Aa. ~~ i II ~nl ~~ ~~n nn 1.1 Ii III~ l~ ~~ ~~ , 1--"- I .- ;1 ;~ii ~UI B ~ ~~, ~fi~i ~g~~ ~g ~~~ I n !I~IJm ii~~~ J gJ l~l! J!!i n~!I Ie ~~ ~~~i ~~~~ R~e. a I! J~~~ !~~~ ~I~=HI I ~~ ~~~~ ~IV9 ;;;~ ~ ;~ :~H~~iiji ii'iiii , I AUSI I ~i . . II :: 'aUCluuluu t~ '- s ~ inl ~u s~u 1 BI!il~lilli~!i liil ~~~III~~il~ii!i~iii~~i~~i~ i I d IUI Hid ial!eUI~; ~ ,~ ~i~1 un ~I ~Ii~ ! II ~t Q~gi ~n.I!fl::!~n~u ~ ~i ~~S~ ~~a~ ~~ ~~D~ II K U ~Ub uu Iii - ~!ill UilA G!ua iUl aaft~ ~ I II UII filn!:, ~ u ll!R!~ i~i~ II;! In:_ collateral charges and attorney's fees," Defendant contends and has dons so at the Pre-trial Conference that the amount in controversy in this case does not exceed the applicable $25,000,00 arbitration limits for Cumberland County, Defendant refers the Court to its Motion to strike this matter from the trial list and/or continue the action which is filed concurrently with this Pre-trial Memorandum of Law detailing the reasons why this Inatter should proceed before an arbitration board and not before a jury, Plaintiff's Complaint does detail several alleged problems and/or complaints with the 1995 Dodge purchased in Maryland, Plaintiff's counsel in the Pre-trial Memorandum improperly refers to these alleged repairs and/or problems as non-conformities which is also disputed by the Defendant, To the contrary, Defendant contends that the vehicle has performed appropriately and as expected by the consumer/Plaintiff in this case, Moreover, the vehicle has oeen repaired successfully when brought to subject dealerships for warranty repairs, It is Defendant's position that no breach of warranty has occurred and that no damages are appropriate under the Magnuson-Moss Act, the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code and/or the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, -2- II . DAMAGES Defendant emphatically denies that damages exceed the applicable $25,000,00 arbitration limits in this case, Defendant has concurrently filed with this Pre-trial Memorandum a Motion to strike this matter from the trial list as the matter should be presented to an arbitration board for these reasons, Defendant refers this Honorable Court to its Motion for a detailed analysis and its reasoning as to why this matter should proceed before an arbitration board and not before a jury, While it is true that under the Pennsylvania Unfair T:t'ade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, a jury could find in favor of the Plaintiff and the Court, upon its discretion, could treble these damages if such appropriate factors are proven at trial, the amount in controversy when netted against the value of the vehicle as returned to Chrysler even after trebling by the Court would not exceed the applicable $25,000,00 arbitration limits, It is highly disputed that the Plaintiff will even set forth or put on any evidence to suggest that the Defendant has breached any standards or requirements under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, II:[ . STATEMENT AS TO PRINC:IPAL ISSUES OF LIAB:ILITY AND DAMAGES Defendant refers this Court to the above statements as well as their Motion filed concurrently with this Pr.e-trial -)- repurchase were in order, Defendant awaits these calculations and specific demand from the Plaintiff, Defendant has no authority to settle this case at this time, Only after the vehicle is inspected and such calculations in a more refined demand is submitted by the Plaintiff can Defendant make a decision as to an evaluation of this case. VIII. OUTSTANDING ITEMS Defendant has filed concurrently with this Pre-trial Memorandum a Motion to strike this matter from the trial list, Defendant appreciates and requests consideration of that Motion by this Honorable Court, Moreover, Defendant objects to the listing of this case for trial as discovery is not yet complete, Defendant has yet to inspect Plaintiff's vehicle and has been attempting to do so over the past several weeks, In addition, Plaintiff's counsel has promised to turn over Plaintiff's exhibits 7 and 8 as well as other alleged repair orders and has ~ done so to date, All such repair orders were requested through discoveI'Y and have not ever been produced, Such inspection and document recovery may lead to ultimate settlement negotiations, and it is requested for this reason that the matter be removed from the trial list to allow -6- 4, Neither tlurinl! the June 17, IlJlJK conference, nllr pursuunttothe June 9, IlJlJK Cull of the Triul List in Cumbcrlund County, did Chrysler's counsel ruise issues pertuininl! tll the amount in controversy Ilr complcteness of discovery, 5, It is submilled thut, in litiling to raise issues questionubly relevant to the amount in controversy anti the completeness of discovery during the June 17, 1998 I're-trial conli:rence, Chrysler waived uny objections relatinl! thereto with prejudice, 6, Notwithstanding said wuiver, Plainti!r will allow Chrysler to inspect the subject vehicle until thirty-six (36) hours prior tll the Notice for Trial. provided that Pluintilr is ufiorded a copy of Chrysler's expert report at least twenty-four (24) hours before commencement of trial. 7, In ~7 of its Mo/ion /11 Strike. Chrysler materially misstates the law in averring that "it is also undisputcd that under any sccnario whereby the Defendants are found liable and a verdict or decision is rcturned in favor of the Plaintit'!: that the Plaintitr must return the vehicle if a repurchase is in ortler and is granted by thc Court," lei. Assuming. arguendo, the jury were to tintlliability under the Magnuson-Moss Act, the Pcnnsylvania Uniform Commercial Code or the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, thc calculation of damages would not necessarily involve Chrysler's repurchasc of Plaintiffs vehicle. To the contrary, and as Chrysler readily admits in ~~ 12-13 of it Motion, under a breach of warranty theory, the measure of damages is equal to the difti:renee at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had. had they been as warranted. 13 P.S. * 2714(b), Under this theory, damages may be equal to or less than the purchase price, Nowhere is repurchase mentioned as an exclusive remedy, 2 II, I'luinlitl' hus provided Chrysler with copies of ull exhibits intended Il.r use ut triul. As u result, one is hurd-presscd to fUlholll how Chrysler Is, In uny wuy, prejudiced bcll.lre procccding to triul. Chryslcr's rel\uest to rClllow the illstunt cuse from the July I 9911 triul listtu the next uvuilublc list -- incluslw of its conccrns rcgurding unlllunt in controversy und unlinished discovery -- bcspeuks u trunspurcnt ullempt to dduy, huruss und otherwise uvuid udjudicution of thc underlying c1uims bcll.lre un impurtiuljury, 9, Pluintlff is gruvcly concerned that in '1~7-15 of Chrysler's MOlion 10 Slrike, whercin Chrysler asserts the so-called "nct ceonomlc gain" theory approprillled by Judge Dalzell of the Eastern District to call compulsory urbitration into question, Chrysler has misled this Honorable Court us to a dispositive theory of law in valuating breach of warranty claims, Months after decisions were handed down in cases cited by Chrysler, Williom.wm v. Chrysler CorporCllion, United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, May 6. 1997, 173 F,R,D, 131 (E,D, Pa, 1997) and Shimsky v. rlml MOlor Comp(my. 170 F,R.D, 125 (E.D, Pa, 1997), Judge Harvey Bartle, also of the Eastern District. decided Neilo/1 v. ChrYl'ler ('orpo/'lllio/1. 1997 WL 798266, No, 97-5749, on December 11,1997, A copy of the Neilo/1 decision is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "c." 10, In light of Neilon. which expressly rejects the "net economic loss" theory, and coupled with the tact thut the Williom,wlII and Shimsky decisions 1;1il to carry precedent in Pennsylvania. this Honorable Court is far from required, as Chrysler suggests. to deduct the "book value" of the subject vehicle from the purchase price in calculating the measure of damages available to, Plaintiff, II. The "net economic gain" method does not seem to be appropriate for use in determining subject matter jurisdh::tion in a \liversity case applying Pennsylvania law since it is not .I 1997 WI. 7911266 Pugc I of 3 (Cite as 1997 WL 798266 (E DPa )) John S NEILON v CHRYSLER CORPORATION No. CIV A 97-5749. United Slates District Court, ED Pennsylvania. Dec. 11, 1997. Paull. Guest, Jr., Newtown Square, PA, for John S. Neilan, Plalnllffs Richard A Franklin, Hwang and Nix, PC, Philadelpbia, PA, for Chrysler Corporation, Defendants, MEMORANDUM BARTLE, J. '1 (Cite as 1997 WL 798266, '1 (E D Pa.)) This Is a "lemon law" case Presently before the Court is the motion of defendant Chrysler Corporatl011 ("Chrysler") to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Chrysler contends that the claim of plaintiff John Neilan does not exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, as required for diversity jurisdiction under 28 use 9 1332(a) (West 1993). According to the complaint plaintiff purchased a new Dodge Dakota 4x4 Pickup Truck from Chrysler In September, 1996. (Complaint at ~ 4). He experienced problems With the truck and Chrysler attempted to fix the vehicle by replacing the ring gear, pinon. propeller shaft, universal Joint and differential (Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction at n 1). After several unsuccessful repair attempts, plaintiff sued in federal court under: (1) the Pennsylvania Lemon Law, Pa. Stat Ann tit 73,991951-63 (West 1993) ("Lemon Law"); (2) the Magnuson-Moss Act, 15 U.S.C. 9 2301 et seq. (West 1998); (3) the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code, 13 Pa Cons. Stat Ann. 991101 et seq. (West 1984); and (4) the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, Pa Stat Ann tit 73, 99201-1 to 201-9.2 (West 1993) The Supreme Court requires a relatively low burden of proof for plaintiffs in establishing the requisite jurisdictional amount: The rule governing dismissal for want of Jurisdiction in cases brought in the federal court is that, unless the law gives a different rule, the sum claimed by plaintiff controls If the claim is apparently made in good faith. It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the J'lrisdictlonal amount to justify dismissal St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v Red Cab Co, 303 US 283.288-89,58 S.Ct 586,82 LEd 845 (1938). Courts will uphold a reasonable, good faith estimate of plaintiffs claims at the time the action begins, even if the ultimate award departs from that estimate See, eg, McNulty v. Travel Park, 853 F.Supp. 144, 146 (E.DPa 1994). In addition, we construe all facts and reasonable Inferences in favor of the non-moving party when considering a motion to dismiss See, eg, Rock v City of Philadelphia, 868 F2d 644,645 (3d CIr.19B9). While defendant focuses on the jurisdictional amount for a diverSity action under 9 1332(a), Neilon also alleges federal jurisdiction based on the Magnuson-Moss Act (Complaint at ~ 3) That statute provides a cause of action to an injured consumer when a warrantor fails to comply With a written or Implied warranty. 15 USC. 9 2301 et seq. Neilon cannol bring this action In federal court If "the amount in controversy is less than the sum or value of $50,000 (exclusive of interests and costs) computed on the basis of all claims to be determined in the suit" 15 USC at9 2310(d)(3)(B). Only certain items may be counted to arrive at this $50,000 minimum. Because the Magnuson-Moss act Involves a breach of warranty, the standard measure of damages is the difference between the value of goods as warranted and the value of the defective goods See Pa Stat Ann. til13 at 9 2714(b) (West 1984); Kruse v Chevrolet Motor Division, CivA No 96.1474, 1997 WL 408039 at'l (E 0 Pa July 17, 1997). Punitive damages may be included In the damages calculation If they are available under state warranty law See, e.g., Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc, 748 F 2d 1058 1067 (5th CIr 1984); Hatcher v Chrysler Motor Corp., No CivA No. 89-6792, 1990 WL 21164 at'1 (EDPa Mar 7, 1990) These damages, however, are not available under Pennsylvania's Uniform Commercial Code See Hatcher. 1990 WL 21154 at '1; Rose v A & L Motor Sales, 699 F Supp. 75, 76-77 (WD Pa 1988). Attorneys' fees cannot be added toward the requirement since they are excluded costs. See, e.g. Hatcher. 1990 WL 21164 at'1 Finally, for jurisdictional purposes under the Magnuson-Moss Act, plaintiff may not count the treble damages allowed under Pennsylvania's Uniform Trade Products and Consumer Protection law ("UTPCPL") See Kruse 1997 WL 408039 at '3. Rose, 699 F.Supp. at n '2 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT C ED Pa)) (Clt I ...IdclilUlt.asp&RLT' ('f,I[)"'t.5FF()R &ScriaINunl' !lJlJl10254 74&StatEd6/22198 1l)l}7 WI. 798266 Puge 2 of 3 We are certain that plaintiff cannot meet the Jurisdictional requirement under the federal statute, even though value of the truck in Its allegedly defective condition is unknown at this tilne Plaintiffs damages could be no more than $22,818.60, the alleged pur9hase price and collateral charges for the truck Nellon clearly falls short ot the necessary $50,000 to Institute the Magnuson-Moss claim in federal court Therefore, If we have subject matter Jurisdiction it must be based on diversity of citizenship and the requisite amount In controversy. See 28 US C ~ 1332(a). The parties are of diverse citizenship. We are left with determining whether the plaintiffs claims under state law exceed $75,000 exclusive of Interest and costs. If so, we also have Jurisdiction over the Magnuson-Moss Act claim. See 28 U.SC ~ 1367(a). Pennsylvania's "lemon law" statute pr.:Jvldes the formula for determining the damages under It Plaintiff 15 entitled to the purchase price of the car less a "reasonable allowance for the purchase~s use of the vehicle not exceeding 10 cents per mile driven or 10% of the purchase price of the vehicle, whichever is less." See Pa Stat Ann tit 73 at ~ 1955; see also, Jones v. General Motors Corp., CivA No 90-7816, 1991 WL 59902 at 'I (E.DPa. Apr.l1, 1991); Belaga v. Volvo North America Corp., ClvA No. 90-1891, 1990 WL 69031 at'3 (E.D.Pa May 22, 1990); Voorhees v General Motors Corp., CivA No 90-295, 1990 WL 29650 at'l (E.D.Pa. Mar. Hi, 1990); Robinson v Hyundai Motor America, 683 FSupp. 515, 516 (E.D.PaI988). In addition, reasonable attorneys' fees and collateral charges, such as accrued finance charges, are recoverable under Pennsylvania's "lemon law" and are InclUded in calculating the jUrisdictional amount See Pa. Stat Ann tit 73 at ~ 1958; Jones, 1991 WL 59902 at'l; Robinson, 683 F.Supp at 516. Finally, a violation of the "lemon law" statute Is also a violation of the UTPCPL which provides fOl' the possibility of treble damages. See Pa Stat Ann tit 73 at, ~ 1961 & ~ 201-92(a). Taking the plaintiffs assertions as true and following the formula outlined in the statute, we reach the following claim for damages: FN1. Neilan alleges that he only drove the vehicle 2,284 miles before first reporting a problem to Chrysier. According to the statute, the maximum reduction for this use would be 10 cents per mile for 2,284 miles which equals $22840. Purchase price and collatel'al charges: $22.8 I 8.60 Reasonable use deduction: - 228.40 [FN I I FN I. Neilon alleges that he only drove Ihe vehicle 2,284 milcs before lirst reporting a problem to Chrysler. According to the statute, the maximum reduction lor Ihis use would he 10 cenls per mile tor 2.284 mile3 which equals $228.40. ...--.........------......------..------_____.~_..___......__....___....oM......................... Subtotal $22.590.20 UTPCPI. treblc damages: x 3 .....................................------................-.............................................................. Sublotal $67.770.60 After trebling the damages, Neilon needs only $7,22941 to exceed the $75,000 requirement At this stage we cannot conclude to a legal certainty that plaintiff will not be entitled to Ihls amount In attorneys' fees. [FN2] Therefore, he meets the Jurisdictional requirement mandated by ~ 1332(a). FN2. Chrysler contends thaI Neilan overstates the collaterai charges by at least $1,200. Assuming arguendo that Chrysler Is correct, Neilan would need $8,42940 In attorneys' fees to meet the jurisdictional requirement This increase does not change our analysis. Chrysler contends, however, that Neilan used the wrong formula when calculating his potential damages. In support, defendant cites the "net economic gain" met~,od of determining the amount in controversy used in Williamson v. Chrysler Corp., 173 FRO. 131 (E 0 Pa 1997) See also Shimsky v. Ford Motor Co, 170 FRO. 125 (E. D. Pa.1997) Under this approach, the court deducts the current market value of the vehicle from the purchlilse price The result is the plaintiffs loss See Williamson, 173 F RD at 132 In order to use this method to compute to a legal certainty whether plaintiffs damages are below the jUllsdictional threshold, we must know the current market value of the vehicle to a legal certainty Id ...fdefault.asp&RI.ToCl.lD%5 FF()RITIl59226&FindTypc .0 Y &ScriilINum" I 998025474&StatEd6/22/98 11197 WI. 798266 Page 3 of J '3 (Cite as 1997 WL 798266, '3 (E.DPa.)) The "net economic gain" method does not seem to be appropriate for use In determining subject mailer JUrisdiction In a diversity case applying Pennsylvania law since It Is not consistent with the method ror calculating damages provided by the Commonwealth's "lemon law" statute. See Pa Stat Ann tit 73 at ~ 1955 Accordingly, we will follow the approach outlined in that statute as explained above. In any caso, Williamson does not change the outcome here because we cannot determine on the record before us the current market value of Nellon's truck to a legal certainty. Chrysler relies on an affidavit by Mallhew Zielke, an Arbitration Manager at Chrysler, which states that the wholesale market value of a similarly equipped vehicle is betwaen $11,400 and $12,400 according to the National Auto Research Black Book for September, 1997. (Defendant's Memorandum In Support of its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Maller Jurisdiction at 6). Chrysler then subtracts the lower estimate of $11 ,400 from plaintiffs total purchase price estimate of $22,81860 to reach $11.41860. [FN3j Trebling this figure results In only $34,25560 in damages, leaving over $40,000 to be accounted for by attorneys' fees In order to reach the $75,000 minimum. FN3. In addition, Chrysler subtracted $1,200 in collateral charges as discussed In note 2. Since defendant uses the wrong formula, we do not need to address the accuracy of this deduction. Chrysler errs by relYing on Mr Zielke's figures which do not refer to the value of Neilan's truck, but rather to a similarly equipped truck of the same model and year As his deposition reveals, Mr Zielke has never Inspected Neilan's truck and he does not claim to know its value (Deposition of Mallhew Zielke at 36-40). While Mr. Zielke's comparative analysis may very well turn out to be correct. we cannot say at this point that we know the market value of plaintiffs truck to a legal certainty, especially If It IS really a "lemon" Thus, we cannot hold that the plaintiff has failed to meet the requisite Jurisdictional amount under the "net economic gain" method, even If that method is valid. Since plaintiffs complaint provides a good faith estimate of damages In excess of $75,000, exclusive of Interest and costs, as required under ~ 1332(a), we will deny the motion of defendant to dismiss for lack of subject mailer jurisdiction. ORDER AND NOW, this 11th day of December, 1997, for the reasons set forth In the accompanying Memorandum, It Is hereby ORDERED that the motion of defendant Chrysler Corporation to dismiss for lack of subject mailer Jurisdiction Is DENIED. E.DPa.,1997. Neilan v. Chrysler Corp. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orlg. U.S. Govt Works ,. .Idefault,asp&RI.T ~(,l.I[)%5 F FQRI.T859226& FindType ... Y &Serial N um= 19980254 74&StatEd 6/22/98 .JURY INSTRUCTION NO.2 BREACH OF WARRANTY A warranty is a promise, either express or implied. made by a seller of goods that the goods he or she sells will possess a certain characteristic or characteristics, The plaintill' contends that the defendant made an express, bumper-to-bumper warranty that covered the subject vehicle for a period of thrce (3) years or thirty-six thousand miles (36,000), whichever comes sooner, The defendant in this case admits making such a warranty but contends that the warranty was not breached in this instance, I will give you the legal definition of warranty, and you will tind upon the evidence either that a wammty was or was not in efTect in thc manner the plaintifT contends, If you tind that the warranty was in dlect in thc manner the plaintifT contends. you must the.l dedde whether the defendant breached the warranty, If you find that the defendant breached the warranlY. you must tinally decide whether thc detendant's brcach of the warranty was a substantial factor in causing the hann that the plaintitT claims he has sullered, Thc thn:e questions you must decide are, therefore: (I) whether a warranty existed. (2) whether the detendant hreach.:d the warranty, and (3) whether the breach of the warranty was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff, If you tind in favor of the plaintifT on all three questions, you will return a verdict for the plaintill', IF you do not find in favor of the plaintitT on all three questions. you will retum a verdict for the defendant. Pa, SSJI (Civ,) 9,00, 2 , , ( ~ L-- - -; "l <:a .+ J ~ ~ I ~ ~ i <l ... ~ ~ , ~ /~ IX: ,';J. ....,~ ~ .j ~ ~ - ) .. .::l J I -;: ~ 11 ~ ft ... .A ~ Ch. , i ~ tI ~ .J J \~ lif i i i ~ ~ i I :{It . l~ ~ . " .-.- -. --- -- ---- __ -c __ ___ ___ - - -- --1-- ( -,--_._~- ~ .,0 --() ~ -- ~ -.- I I ~ dO ~ V 1 ~ --' . 1---. -. : L IT \-', >C ~. I I ~E~r lit: Qllvetti FX 21UO : 5- ( -II : 1'1 : ',4 : 11 r 1- J ~ 7 t:i~ ; ~~.2 :~ I. , , GRAY'S AUTO BODY SPECIALIST . ~o YJ~ N4#o.' ,j'I.L( ,.eo tltfte'-'fL.l #I ,..", '1/, r '" 17uo5 I"~ ".:)rtJ . l) ~p J ESTIMATE OF HEPAIRS 6:2:tf~ .f".~""'''''N-dA.... 1)11111 .)- - LI~.Jii r-ln'll" !.~--.b""~;~r'6 Al)d1'" ~';1 ~"'~,A ~ GII, E""".;1 ,t"J Ita",. P~D'\. 7~ J - 74.. M... ~MU' "tn' j''>-M<~''.&_IL' th,nb./ -L~ 7~~ t:' /J, -oJ '1-t..rCfiil.__ WOI. PhO". _ . '_' ...4dUttpl"_.. ......__ l'c:.(rlleo No - Inlllr.nl:t Co. _. AdJIIRlr'___ ....=;0-. - ,.-- -,--~ ' . -' .. 1ft\'. ", -.- ~ pall glatt E511MA'~ 0' ~EP.'R COSIS PAINf L^lon ~^AH' -.(;1 I 7 HRS ~1.'.)LlI I Y ftJ,,;(' ~M..s .:;? /. Z __~,p,,~ 0 () ~ , ,l..Ow6/( tJc>"/..- ..;? " J. - C J , A? ,1~ "..,tI~,.,~ ,(J".N..f .;1. (;) /. 0 ~ - ~t~",~ Aw..-- 0'. ~ - .-.. - - ~------. Q . . - 5 &~,A.<<" ~ ~.;.=: t/ 7,., . '- - ". -81. 0 ~~.-d~'''~ "'~_, ~ -. .--.- --- --- -.. 7 l-- - -'---"-' ..'----_._.~_. - .., . .__.A:....;'<,c -- .. ...-. Uf,J-:- f}d~~J"I"'~ -;;> &. " / "- -. - ..- ...- ~ ---. ,,-- ,-. ..- ./ _.. .--.- --- -....., - f-.. . ,,, - ..: .---- - p-----~--_.__. --- ._.~._----- _. .~ -.- -_. ,- 1--" III t -'j"- .- i- ___ , .. --.--.---.-.. ,,-.- .._- ..-. ... -. .- -_. -.. - _. - ,~ . t~ .-.. . .--_. ---- .. .-.--- -.. - ~..- - ',. t .' ._~. . ~ ,'.-- - - ,.. .. .- --- " . .... .- _. __L_ --- ". - ~ ----...-..... ... ,,- -- f-.. .!:. I ..-, .- -_.\-- -"'- ~~ - ..-- . '- -.. ...... ~ ..'. .. I~t - -~.- --.- .. ....____..__ a~ - .. ... .. - 17 - --. ... _._------ ", .. ------ -- ._. -- ...--, I~ --..-., . . ,- ... ,,- Ie -- "- -- --- ----_.- ..._----.-._-_._-._-.~ - . .....- ~o -- . - -- '- .' -- -.... 11 - ~ -- --.- n ". . .----,. . - ". ~, --- ...-- '- ...---- " .-. --- f-- il' - ". '. .,.-..-----. .- ._,~._- __4.. .--.- - -- ..- 1-- ~. .. - .- ---'-- - ".,.. . .... ,-- il5 ... .- " . T. -..... '- .- ......or.: .. -.. ...-~ .- TOIII (!-:. D /.!I. 'I , -- . ..._- --=-. ...- .::c:r.'~~ t;-;'O - .. lH'llSll\t,., t l~ D^f'fn ou O~IlII",s.,r;"ON .AN'.' Don '~ul ,"uvfn ACOlllUhlAl 'AII"!\ 1.".ULl~.JAt... Hns I': ~. S ./I? "1) OR' "'J~,q V~HC~1 MAY I' "IUl.lIMIO ""In '~I WC"r( HA$ errN SUfIIITIO "I'TI~ '1-" 'hOfilK "AI S T "rp CD wtJF'1'I 0" OA,M"O~O '"1''' WMICM ..lit.. '40' a\llOINl nP1' 'nJ' If'.4. ~"D I> 8P(~'ION MA'" In C1',c;O\'trtIO "lAfUAAlI.V nl19 f9m...~..1!' OANNOT (Ovl" ,v::~ co',. I j:'J"'I,\'\ Hn~ ')1 S $ ",.IOINC',:I OI\Rf& ""',eta ,t,,;8J!CT TO CHANGI WltHQUl NQII(;I lHI!\ '!:tW."tAH I~ --.. FOR '\U.~"OI"fl "''''CIP'^Il,/CE FJAnl'3 UI.UIC'Clll"' 1I1''',,'~1 , Irt 'h4 tw.nt thl. "II""" II u&td .. . ~o,k ord.r "',Ill tl,nfd for rAl~;1 ,M~,1EnIA" ,._~~ co",prl1lon 0' wOlk don. .tllf'CI~'V. ,.,.... .-11I b, no r9t"un.1 BIJAI IT ITEM!l D ~ Holm_.lbl, I.. ,hell.' ,Md,"'" w~lI. o. till "''''',.... It . 1h.,. win ".lImlted IUI'"'''' 01\ '1",,:1".. du. tl) It,"' llI'lotllt\t. . ",,'(' .'~~I. At I $ ''':I''III,ond 'a, !U diY' 0' ,....tt Nt.. I....... , . ," I'" .. . S~ .:.-. .. '''' . ,,"/ ." GRAY'S AUTO BODY SPECIALIST 21-GettysburltPike Methllntcsburg;-PA-1-7056 ,',M.. u.. .. (11101'" r".d"N) .(1-l1+-19o.9111 Nllm, ~{ "J I' L~ ... "--.6" r__ ~ .Addr en 'i'~."> ,v~..J..,I.6..'-1" _~~'" . 0,).>8 ~ ",,"'0 ,.?"'-Li' t....kt -IfJ""'~'.L' 'r'M yf ~ Modl!l'~"''' ,'*'/ /...~...., .......~ Cily /A"'I"~'" .,,1"'-"'(0 Numb.' //Y'7/,-;U.l'/ $',,3..N:t.J!Ody 51,1. MIIPIIO" ".. n.. pall pInta I , 2 . 3 ~ . 5 ~ I .. 1 ~ ! 9 10 " 12 13 .. 15 16 I ,7 , I 16 : '9 I ! 20 I I 2' I 22 , I 23 I 2' I 25 I _llcen!!. No Inl"'lnc. Co. ESTIMATE Of REPAIR COSIS <:!'-""~ ~;'fI' A.1;-.i'I ~ J-:..JNV ~~$ ,,11.',- tIf."J/ .-F' ""~A""" K' ""d..... c:..._........ .~/........,."" -? ....~~4 ..5:~t::r" .... ........~......J,,< .(Ie,;c,<' ~.--&,,,., ... L ,,~~..;' ~"...I.c. ~. -4n...."" r-..-,,<",,,,,,,... ~ ~. ~e-- ~ ".-'/ .............. r- ,..-;;;:?// ,;. L4,' ~ /< ..-<:> 0'-?L'o/r .iJ!'-.-,-<",L" V,,;'H,tr(.-I" ~t.A"'/ "...""-< r,...~ / / PAIN' '? 0 /. ..:J ? $" -" ",- .r. S" :>. $' '1 &> Onto J. ESTIMATE OF REPAIRS /1' 19 JI:'- I\djusler l^9Un IIRS .~ I. <' I. D /. /. J. Gi ToI.1 /11.' ~ t. < 'HIS ISm_un IS 8ASEO ON OUA INSPlC1ION AND OOES NOT COVER ACOITIONAL PART' 0" LAlOR WHICH MAY SI RIOUIArD AnER THE WORK HAS BIEN STAATlO, A"EA THE WORK HAS STARTED, WORN OR DAMAGED PARTS WHICH ARE NOT EVIDENT ON 'IRST IN. SPECTION MAY IE DISCOVIRID, NATUAAll't THIS UTIMA'I CANNOT COVER SUCH CON. TINGENCIES PARTS PRICIS SUBJECT TO CHANG I vnTHOU' NOTlCL THIS ESTIMATE. IS 'OR IMMEDIATI ACCEPTANCE In lilt ....,'lhl'..tI"."... ulld .. . _h .... ....,"'*' I.. oomplo,lon .. w<<k dOllf "'I,'_y, """ ..III...... -.., No,_lIbll'or """ or _I"'" wIIlII on tilt """"_ T...... ...11 ... Nm/locI .._ on II......... due to "'.. cndl..... . Inllllllo ......,.. 30 do"or ......", 1....- LABOR PAINT Ims '" $ 1<115.', S PAnTS (slIlJ,ecl 10 invofce)" PAINI/MAI EJ1IALS. SUBLET IIEMS..... . ....... . IOWING/SIOnIOE. ...... ...... .. SUB TOrAL I ~"'.~ TAX )( Olte Completion - Owner GRAND . , . L .... Hom. Phone WOlk Phollo 1. U. 7&~o PIAIS NF.l I SUBlU ..... G> 1..7S' ..0 1'-" ,Q .. .Z> s 2:,-$ __ S ';VL __ S S ~ j>o s ..17$ .,... ' S S /~:I~ J\:!tl . 79 F. , ..~........... /'I~O .... t..y PHONE 697.3102 romflJmffSY -,- 701 E. LOCUST ST. MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 l., .. .' .-.:'),,,, (~......~.~.., '"~ '- (. . . J'. ,:'-':.:.......c.l'.t ,..,1"'.>-,""(''' !' ."1.. HAME lWl d--;;' ')- "} ') 7 ))- 7 ('..J. 0 ACORESS ",;'1 ( , i -C) / ,.J I )', ... I( d PHOHI om; , WWIIO 1 iJ "/ ,~. ,~ ~&(' I S ~ I '.3 'l ~ I ..:', 101/1 '.." ....\ - r 'YIM W(K)(L I MAKI M CAA Ii' ""'" "'PI I UCINSI NO T SlAIAL NO lIlOCIC NO I ......- I ,.;' r I ('Ul" ~. ,~.~ 'n)( ,. / ,.,.,.. "1M'" ".'LACE VoIDIO "",- , I~ . ('I "~'~ (~.'... ~.",..... ,. J 'I t,41 Y' I() - 'f. tI. -I <\.; t'.'-' ( ~'_'" ~ ') , () -, 0 , -y . 'f ~'X~ \.'.r t.. G' ~.,--- "'- ! ). 1,-1 ) I ~) c) <J l , J ( -I i:...'.-.(..... . '. ') .0- 0 . \<.. J I \ "'5 I ,.I './ \ (' /1' "., /, " J- /- .. .:,.l 0 .,), ~,", 1- .~~ ::-~iU.; { 1,'-'-1. . ")7 .' .< '. , '$'0 0 ,-( 1 t It " oj 1\\ .' . " " I":,,{ ,I.- r"'J S . WORK SUB.lET -FRAMEWORK TOWING " PAINT MATERIAL ,i,' . " . ,~) <.: /j CJ' 1J c:~ - : / <; ) \'~ 'II ~.1 ('.~() ;:1'(u .- 'MI" "'NAIIII ....0 Oll DUll lltU"C"O" '''0 DOlt "0' (Owlll aODUIOIIIU "11I1' a.liIO- _..'(M""" 8' \-' 'i' 0 1I10U.1I10 .ullll ,.... .au ,........ ,"'IIUllt .'''III~. WOl\"'"U ,U1I110 W"""'O~DU"'OID .....'..~It" IALUTAX -- --; I ~~ .111 NO' ('WIDI'" ~'lIl""'I"IC'tON Mn II DIICD'W(.11t ..UUIIHU '~I.,."..."IlUl"O' COVill Iue..eON ""O''''C'II '"III"IIIIU' 'I ,O..I'.....DIU' .CCI"uel OIlAHO c;o<; 77 THIS WORK AUTHORIZED BY - .. TOTA\ ESTIMATE SHEET AND REPAIR ORDER S3f1WflJrarNfSY 100'_ 701 I!. LOCUST ST. /'1' . <. .... \ \ c..:- _ .. i..' c-~' '... \.J.o'(.'f':.. .))c ....J H.... ..r'':~.s..L:.. l' j.... J . '...~: '... G- AO("'''., ", ~ 7 (. I 0 ..~ ,.J I( U -'--~d;;-)J ~. . .-,- .!~~::LJ.r__~ ~,~ ~ I I """ WOOl" ,.;;r "."',IIt "'~I '( y - " - - )., .. /' . PHONE 897-3102 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 ~/(J ~J'I J. 9 47 O{!;I!.l ~ ,:;}.-;;'?-' ') "'} )) - 7 (,J- C; - ~ WOHTtD 1/3 7 ,~ ,; ~&C' I S S I :3.3.,. ~ I I ....., OIl CAA ,.J.,~' Ill,;' , I ..- not I ,:, +',<. UCINSI NO I IIAIM. NO ....... i~.J ~ j? ,L4- "\}t1...I>...- (\2.u",\..,"; ~.c>-r Lu.......-..... \ l~,-t ) t-::loo......,t.." I \'2..J V\~) .' 4~ O.,.J,:.'-^-) r?,t",. ~ L"t" ,l..+ (f I r;J4.... (,"'u 14- ...J.. :)4 ~.-.?"" ~.... ~ 5i:O~ (5.L..-\ It ry-1.. IJ lA,"'.....,.... /:'1\ ~J.,("".,!' . '17 ~o , " '. -. WORK SUB.LET -FRAMEWORK TOWING PAINT MATERIAL , " ..,~ ... ..j . it.~.,.-=,...,.,..,,: ' 'tt~,..,. I~(," - \..... . .....' .... . ~, . ;....- I 'i") \'\) ;, ",1,'",. , ".,. ""..."" 14 ,.uo n. o".,,,,',c,,o,, '''01'0'' OIn' co"',.{'o"to.,,~ ..n, nll ''''I). .....c.. ..... 'If .tou.....,u.,... .0'''1 ..........'..."0 afl...MI.a....... ".un.o .01"'0.d.uIlo0.....,. ."uc" "f ..", '.'0'''' 0"1"'" ,......c"O...... I' O'ICO.I"O "'"\1''''' hU'. "'''''Ill .....a' cou. 'UCIt COil "..O...C.f."..tll"....,...........ltll.,..CrI.""CI IHIS WORK .UTHORIZED IV """"'NO I ...- III - I 0 I It") / tJ o 0.( . d') '5' ~ I - ~":) 0 ~ c:) 0-0 .. C.',.~ ';" :"1' "'. - ,,<. - 0 .' ,; '. . '._ _.0 . ,. ...... . - ~~. ,. ":;i, ~,-~,~ ~: ?:: . . ". /' .," ,.,-. -:. .-1 ,; . . .t: /3 ~ '1r 0:' (II 7 (If, --:;t~1 tJ - 8' \~ )0 ~-;-I ~7 '10'->> -n SALlITAX alllNa TOTAl. , . . 6970875 47064 ACCENT FUNDING GEORGE SULLENBERGER JR 4520 VAl.LY ROAD ENOU. PA 17025 HOME: 697-0875 BUS: 732-7620 'INVOICE' PAGE 1 SERVICE ADVISOR: I WIlliE . Of DAlf 95 DODGE 500 PU PROD. WARR. EXP. 1B7KF26C1SS133961 PROMI5fO PO NO. r1-OIM CUMBERLAND VAU.EY IIOTORS 6714/20 Carlisle Pike Mechanlc8buro. PA 17066 BMW/SubBru 17171 697.9462 Dodoe/Shelbv (7171 697.9460 RAlf 15148 15148 PAYMENT N . OAT V R.O. OPENfD READY 46. S'rK:16662 DLR:OTHER ENG:5.9L DSI l)TAX EXEMPT #21527622 2TNO CSC 08: 22 18AUG95 9' 3 8 UG95 LINE OPCODE TECH TYPE HO~ A'RECALL 638 CAUSE: RECALL 23638182 RECALL 638 409 D.L.W. LIC/: 2371 WD93 0.20 1 CBRA6380 CAM FC: PART#: CBRA6380 COUNT : CU.IM TYPE: AUTH CODE: 2371 LIST NET TOTAL eN/C) eN/C) PARTS: 0.00 LABOR: 0.00 OTHER : 0.00 TOTAL LINE A: 0.00 .................................................... a $24.99 OIL AND FILTER CHANGE MA1CA DEISEL COUPON OIL AND FILTER 409 D.L.W. LIC/: 2371 CD 0.50 15.00 15.00 1 4429615 FILTER 7.20 7.12 7.12 11 DOlL OIL 1.82 1.07 11.77 PARTS: 18.89 LABOR: 15.00 OTHER : 0.00 TOTAL LINE B: 33.89 .................................................... I PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT S AI T"-f.cloryw.,."tyCOtlIIUuf...lI 0' 1M W"f.m~ with ,,,,"cl '0 ,,.,. ..'- .f thle ItlmlllMlI. T"- Sell., Iwrob., Iltpt_'" dl,cllllm. all ...,."..111.. "I~ .."... ., Implied. Including .,y Implied w<<,ent'l ., ml.ch.,I8blllty or Ill..... 'Of . p~I.Ii. ""'",.... Sen., nellhtll' _UIMI M' Mhoi'll" ItIY olhef Pfl'lon to ..-urn. fOf II 11I1'1' IIMMllly In corwwcllon wltn IN '''0 .r ttW. III",/ltlm.. CUSTOMlfll SIGNATURE CUSTOMER COpy DUCIUPTION lABOR AMOUNT PARTS AMOUNT GAS. Oil. LUll SUBUT AMOUNT MI8C. CHAROn TOTAL CHAROES LESS INSURANCE SALlS TAX PLIAII! PAY THII AMOUNT TOTAL' 0.00 ., -- f-- I , ~ I~ ~ "" ~ Irtf~ <;,~~ i ...~~~~), S. I~~~ , ~\~ IX: .~ ~~ ~'_ ~ f\'~ . ~~~ ~, t- l", .. JC rc I. ~ n~ I; _ I" ~ ~.~ i, ~ ~" J I 1/ i fi i ~ i~ r ;:: ~i~ 8~ ...1 ~c; ~ , r- J ~I>c , I - ~ I I ~ " (,I r- ';~ ,ll ~ ~ 01( ~' 1 \ Q. i Ii (, l: 11 :a _ J. .. " - II e-- "\', ~ ~_ I & . , ~l-V!V~III I " UI~ I I I 1 ' I I " I , I -- - . S2.\9600T WARRANTY CLAIM INFORMATION SUMMAR y C13T0885 12/02/97 VIN: IB7KF26C1SS133961 --- 95 DODGE RAM 2500 16:38:34 T C - - - -REPAIR- --- C N DATE ZN DLR CLAIM/SC MILEAGE MICRO/AUTH LIST-DT TOT-EXP W 06/07/96 42436 630820 31,258 96071 $252.07 A 1 LOP.08191506 SNSR ASS FC.3T PART.04485165 EXP. $252.07 VW 01./11/96 54023 162617 23,920 96022 $153.84 A 1 LOP.08528001 MTR-W/S WIPER FC.14 PART.55076549 EXp. $153.84 W 10/17/95 42436 503920 18,908 95111 $210.02 A 1 LOP.14304603 SLND FUEL CUTOFF FC.07 PART.04761273 EXP. $210.02 S 08/18/95 42436 470640 15,148 95091 $10.41 A 1 LOP.23638182 SECONDARY LATCH FC.UC PART..CBRA6380 EXP.. $10.41 W 05/05/95 42436 411960 9,464 95061 $918.97 A 1 LOP.23705102 FRONT FENDER FC.P2 PART.NO PART EXP. $918.97 TOTAL WAR.RA.VTY COST: $1632.31 PF 1.DLR/SUS 2..PGl 3.DLR 4.AUTH 6..VEH 7.CLM DTL 8.HELP 9..DESC l1..WARR 12..0WNR **** PRESS ENTER TO CONTINUE **** , . , PLAINnFF'8 EXHIBIT I. ,:.tl.'::,t..: r{CVM. CUMBERLAND VAllEY MOTORS SI"'2O CARlI5lE P'.E MECHAN'C5BURG. PA IIO~~ BMWI5UBAnu (III) ~UIU4~2 DODGE/5HElBY (117) SUI,U4S0 I <- r I I ~ II ,,' If " , . ~ ' :" " I,'j "II , II 1"11'1'. , 1.'1,1,1 , " I I II' I ,". " ','II' I, 1,111'11.1 ,..,.. . .' 1.11 JI;/ 111-:1 II r.' 1,1,,1',' .'10' 1:/'.1;\ , I., d 1'1, "-, '., . 111"11 " '( ,.'~,~' ; f) .I',) : '/ ,:1:' . i'.';.. :1.1 COLOR YEAR MAK~EL SERVICE ADVISOR: VIN ~'Jl It I L DEL, DATE PROMISED r~' :':~'.~..L". J ~I~' :~: ":':"/" PO NO, RAT!! '.:1', ,"'jlll' :'l (,,~ ill.},,"', 'l R.O. OPENED R!;ADY .,' ; lu'l ,', -, LllJ~. .. :::-~ "1, ~. OPTIONS: (.; II': 1 (,.(.f',"' lILF,: U I HEH I' "JU: ':; 0 ':'1 OS 1 ":"IIII~,:r' ".1.111.1 (\11\< E(EJ1,"l 1I:'t~-;:~7.':o.:;: ::)t,IU r;sc '~n1{) ....J... [IEf.il.f' 1 f' r I ()I' 1~3/1 ~I:'J I [\1,1(; r I 1.11 I!] ~ 'l. I 'C'\ t'i'Q C.t." ClJStOl1ER' !HATES' THE' ABS'.: ANt'" BRAKE" L1CiH'f IS ON "A1l16 '.'...',' nll:,PE 18 A SLm:[CI~ (NU "ID I SE Fnor., T HE LEFT Ff,ON' ~JHEEl. AR'EA ,,:.:';,:,l.>...~'..'.rl~;....;;, :""1. fl" ., .. ~:/,-',f?f~~r~..i ('/~JUH.;',~, -X7: ,)~ '-HIE [IF' COllI:. 'ECH It A ,. '(I;'f, CD " ,,". ',,'" ,':""i.:'.:it:'J~~~':: :,::;'T.:",::\,".~~, I ',~';' ,'.,.; ....\1, .: . .~""~~l';rlr;.", _ :' " I ,.' , ~... ':..; ".', I.",' .i. ~\.; ~, '.'.}.' .';,....: ,..~ :;: :' ;;,~'~' ~~. ;;'l'~:;~ :i,~i:.i .;, .: , . ,,',';'" l :, ..j "'~" ,~'~'~~':i< ~';~i' , .....,.... ',. ,',:..r~,'.,;!:;~T?;:~'>) ,.', " '".; :'-" .~~':~~)~~,\)~ 'I' ~, :. '. ,f ..' :::, :':' . 'I' '...~ :',:0:.-', 'y,:.t!;~'.;::' , :. " ; ~.,;t;::::,?':!.7;','" ::'Y~:t~S~;:'~ l:,'~t,;:\,'.r,:.,I.'t.,. . '., .... ". ':.~ '.'f- ~ .";~.\.,~",;J !'; ~ ~'. .',' .:..~;. .' "'~;' ,I~",,~, ':"' ;. "~.",,,. jf:;""7~'~":"':' .J:......\".~.,~\...,,,.I,\.I.. '.. ". ,"" i':',.,\..I~.'I" 1,1"~\~.tl',;,, I',.\.i~~;r;.~t~;' n\~~(i~..\';...., ,,>: .1; ;~;; .;. ..r")":"~'~: ~,...,.'.:~~,~,~.:~~...,. , ',', .,,,. :...:-:;':')'~;'~' -. " , "". ',.1>t'C:,.~'~.,:', .', ':',F~)l:~\'.:r!"(i ;.~:' ;',., ,....": l',:~}.:;..i:r,:r:.:~~,.:L~,:~,:d~.i:l, . ,'." t,';.. ~. '~,~:~:' ;~',7:.~.i ,,:. ..... r.\." ".;- "6 . '~fO";'- .J '. I ~~:". :'. . ,.'::- ; ,;',. . '" .....,. .. ".,.. "':>!1~~'U"'~/'"'I''''' . "-~'t"-df" '" ",\JI",,, ..." .' '..'. "-0' 1,", ~. ,,;,..,~'I .Iof~l'" 0, ".r,J:~ .. J~,~,,~'ij.',.().. .~~.....',~".\I: 1'~'1..,..,. i >it':"-.'- ,::~ ,',;<),or,..'l. ~"',1i'j.:,..;.-"i"'..;II!" .~r I' l l!., ~ ).. ". .".,. 'W'"," . "'l- -~Vl. 1.7. lilr'L>,,'T.;:lll....,. ".,.....,.., -.',' , ',.."..,,..,...., ,-O? \.' .1'..~.1.' .'r\llil'~1 .~ ~1,'l.I)~j.l~...: J,~,~t~ ')~ ;"'~l\.... 'I, ':.~. ,'., . ,1', .\.';'0", ",.,...' '.', , eo,.. ,."......::v,JJ./1".1- . 14 ,. .'.,.' ! ,,!, ' '1':'"4....1.. ~, ... '.' . " II.. ~.It~}.~r ~h,,1 r I,. ' ';"' '::.~~ t' . .,~ 0<; ''':(~.h ..'e:"".~~"'''''r.''~'~.,''r.''.~''i'';''''j,,'''''Il1-::rir;I''r ,.~...: .I,' .: ,:, J "'f.F(;p(l"}IJj'~.r./,"..~:, ,','I,.h~', t._,::Jr,:t~"I~ ~(>f,~(~ . ,'. ". r .'!~,'I 1";":-'\1 ,"\'~,V" ,.; /t ~:' .y. '. . .' :'. . .. '," ;,,~f\~~ 'r.r!"."~':'\'l.'" , ;:~J.~'.,k.'.,;'.'." .~rJ~;,~ v,").\'lIf: " ,....... '.,. /." '\ ''I-~',,l!~'n.~.,,''',, : (I. ..' ":i';,~~'.:',';I.,N~~~~~\'t.f~:i'~:I(:~,~.(:':;:~i.~::2;::I~",;;;,1~' ...;:.,.< ......".i.,~.'''" ..",. ''''''', '~\\:, I, "t~~j(fvr 'J~,",,:"t.:1,j~...\ ',: f".':',;~4.;a. \ ., ,"',' ,', ;.' ,.,.. "i'("~'f,~'i:i.' ,.~,',,':.; ;i"'!.~.,~: .' ~,~~ i~::~,~\;':'~;'~~tm~~~\,:~ ~.: ;"'::\ ,.,".' "', i '.; .;:.j'.~',~ ,.:.f ri(l1!~;;:(:'~I;;:T" , '" . ." . ", ". ,,. ". ,"'" '" . ~ : ".';.. " "\' ,......;,."':........,...:...,, In lhe ,v.nllhl' you, Ih, cullom.r, author'z. comm.neem.n: bUI do not lulhorlz. completlon 01 . ',pllr or "Nlc.. a charg. ...111 be ImPO,ed lor dlllll.mbly. rll...mbly, or partially compl.lN wo,k, Such charge wtll e. directly "lll.d 10 'h. aelual .mounl olllbot or part I Included In th. Inlj)4tClon. 'epalr or .Irvle.. AUTHO"IZATlON '0" "'PA'''' I hlr.by lulhorlz. 'hi r.pall work h,"I" III forth 10 be don. Ilona wllh Ih. n,c,slIty ma'erlal and aa'.. 'hal you ar. nol ,.eponllbl.,or k)1I or damagllo vlhlC'1 or Irtlelll I.ft In vehlel. In ell. 01 fl". 11'1.11 or Iny olh.r ciUII ~YlJnd your conl,ot Of 'ot any delaYI eluled by unlIvllllllblllly REVISED 01 Plrt, 0' dellVI In part'lhlpm.nl' Ih, ,uooller Ot' IfanlPG:r1.t. IMllbv or.nf you andlor your (STIMAT&: (2) Imolay... permllllon 10 ope.ral' 11'1, Ihlell hi"ln dllc,ll)fd on 11'lItl" h !OhwaYI or els.wher. lor lhl purpall o~ '"lIng ancUDr Inlpecllon. An 'llp"S. mechanic', B.n . tier.by acknowledged on lbovl vlhlell 10 IICur. lh. amount 01 "pIlft tll"tO, Th. dll'ershlp Is nof 'esponSlbl. 10f d.m.g.s 110m fr'lzlng du.lo lack 0' anlll'II,.. ' "'1" :', .. ": --:'.;~;; ~ r,.;~' "~:I' ~..4fl'.." I~:I . ,. AUTHORIZED BV REVISID ES11"'ATI II) TI R.placed pllrta will be returned unl." speclntd otherwls.. () Aelur" parts 0 OhSC8rd partl. "IVlstO ESTlMATl(j) I HIiREnV ACl<NOWUDOE THAi I WAS oo11f110. GAVE ORAL APPROVAL Of THE AeOVE REVIS1D ESTIMATES: x, eu.'OIHIl.~.Uur" _aAmeD'IIIII'''.'1' ~ .- _ __" _ _. _~_. - -f----I--- .. ,,,", __0- -.- ,-- - I H ( 1 -l (\,'" __ ...._ __I-- -- ...--- ,- -:; .c: 0 -:; t:"- .."7' -=r ~ Tf /~2.~" =,' ~~ ': ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fcJ .. .l\lr I\l It Nr I\lr Nr Nr ~ ~ 1) ~ ~ ~ h v:> r I I! ~ I! C'- I! r:l Pi\, GO i /' ~" , .:....~ } V) ~ · ~ ~ ~!A 'r-;! ~! ~J ~ .~ .... G\ ". b? : \0. ..;: 3, Q !J 00 !J \ J I- tJ 1-0 \'l ~ t ~ ~ ..- ~ R ~:: ( ~ ~~ ~ . i - : _ 9 0 ~ ..~ ~. ,~ '-. -1 i. - r ""- - r ~ :- ...... ~ ~ ~ '" ~ "/,, ~ ~ '~~ ~ I): .. ...... ~ :.. ~ ~ "') ~ ~ll ~!". "'~ II - . - ~ ~ I"l>....." ~. ~ t:l &lll d. ~~ ~~h..J~ ~ ~' 'A I::" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~+_ ~~ ~ .r '>:1 .r ~ >C t-. ~ "i"~ ~ :. 'oS' ",-" I ~\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' . ~ . ~ ~~~~ ~~ '" ~ i I~.t:~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~'M~ l~ .~ ~~ ~ i~:---'~ . ;~ ~ i"'\~~~~ ~ ,,~ i ~ ~ ~ · ~ ~ /.~ D .' ~ 1/ r~ ~: 0< ~ " ~ , , 10.... :-" 1/ .... . f- J i . IX: ( o ~ h ld~ ) i ~ f~~ '1i"'~ ......-4....r-a ~~ e:~~~ 6s L;~im-~~ I ... _ ~ ~ ,:.; b' y.; _o<~:-:~~. _~ ~ W ~ ~ G~ . ~ ~ ~.~<t<I<I([ ~'[ I~ I I i :.. <'JC7) . . ~ ~~ 0< ~'- NrlIJr en r;- ... ,~ ~ N~!:Q-~ I rfl ..... ~ ! - ~lj F Nt- l\Jjll~' I 113 ~~ ~ J .~ ;. I, c<, ~ rfl . \'% .. ~d. ~ -I I .. '" n' a~ - ~J - ~. ~ ~~. J.. ~ ;-~ - ~ ~. ~ ..... 1;1 --- "t "l_ -i ':.. ~ o<~ -iJ ~_!I~' r -f-.- ~ - '!l ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ . : 'll ~ :!. \:) - (l' ~ i - i I~ &ll ~ ~ _. ~ rt, . <I_._, - r ,- r :-~~ ~ - ,..--- ~ ~ ..1"11-- ... .. . . ~ t ~: ~ " -I-~~-" ,..- r-t-t-~---r-t-,nn-_~~ ~ - ~~ ~ H-l-,-'~ I N e CVM AUTO PARK 6714/20 CARLISLE PIKE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 800-382-1430 OR (717) 697-9448 N,'ME '~c.,~c.,~ ~Vv-.~~~MAKE/MODEL ;;.)S-OCW o-l11'-.. SER" trs? ~< p ~ '.0 G. \ SS I ?t"l~lpRO DATE TRANS ~ ENGINE ~ PIS ......... Ale ~ z.1.1!:> (;TY I '( I N I OEseR I PTION I PART NO I PRICE I LABOR I SUBLET - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -,: - -.J.- - - - --- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - ~------ -- --- ---- I I I I(~ I ,.j. ~ I Y I_I ~8)" 1 ~;l"J f..2dlj $"yd.OO, ~OO 415",00 ! _ _l~i P II/'7vt..3~~ /3{,. y() I - '~h, {t> I I I I I _1_1 I I I I I I I I _1__1 I I I I I I I I ___1_1 I I I I I I I I _1_1 I I 1 I I I I I ___'_1 I I I I I I I I _'_I I I I I I I ___1_1 I I I I _1- I 1 I _1- I I I _1- I I I I __1_1- I I I I '_1- I I I I_I- I I I_I- I 1 I_I- I I '_1- f '.: NOTES PARTS LABOR t I I I I I I I I llf3r, % I I- I . I I I llt,q .1-e TAX , TOTAL Z0'3!ll:ld 9~~01 I' ,.' r' ' I = ~I ~ ,-------- -, -:.-._-'- I 0 ~ I I .1ISIHX3 S.:f:fI.1NIYld I Io' a I I I I I I J I Ul ~" I :J ~a: :: I ;:! Ol~ I! (lJ ... ::J"'''' )olD ~ I crUl.,... ill IIJE [f ~ I ~ ~l!l .". I 0: ~ ::l;:: I Q~- , llJrn.J:r!::; ,.. . Cl a. : I- 3; 5 I ct;~ I lOW I 1 I I , 1 I I I I I I I I & .:.m In u& ~ , ~ r ;i) ! " n: 'J.t U' 1>. IIJ !:'il ~ ..! "" m M:&_" c' ! . ~, .J ~ .\ J "" .. .. . (II oil , '. _,'I J , " ,\;. >< "f."\ , I'~ .. ". 0 ... ".j-,.. ... ?- M i fA) r- Q.~ '\~~ '" 1\,." (II '~,~J .... OJ ""'i ~ ~J.~... .J ~~) li f.Q "'r'" () l'" , ' '.:.~ \ ~ v ~ J' rXI ... ", '" """\, ~ ~ ..0 ....,..' 1 I .("'''lo v) r- ~ . j l- N If;:~';, III B f- 'fll.', ci a: 1 ~ ID N '.' .O~G ~ J ~ CI .e) V> (J ') ------, - I I I Q(i" ~I ~i ~ ~ I ... ..., I I I I I I I I I III ii' tl ~Il:' I I I I ..01 ~I ~, ....' Ii ~ I ~I I I , !I al' "I ~I . .J S~ISl La. 6Z J3a -,....-..- . II:'L : U-n-&Ll oOLi lC~ IU'^J10 :". !N3S o J A \ 4: ~, ~ .R Oeta f\" C~\R\ a~\97\B G~ \1 ~ Page: 'Tmp ~1I(\ru't SIl\.\.tKBEll.GtR 'lI: 7\7 73~ 7620 'lIl 717 697 06H p~ 170t&. Cntr~~ us~ ~ln91 i \ 07 13~/~1 tompany: ~ctEln fl,lKDlltG C~.tl ~~. GEORGE ~O\ I 417 ttlO~~ PoD $~\n 8 ~01: C~y/St/l1P\ iMO~~ eo. 0"'1'\ · t01ll1l1l'\YI U"l A011 ~021 Ct~/S~/l1P I , II PhI '1" cnV~' ~Inl' 51'.11'.101. 11'10 lIol'.al ........................... opal'\ao bY' RCM! Opln 01'.1 113014 tYPI e 51'.11'.1 C C)o.ad bYI RCM3 C'O.IO 01'.' 11301. A,rl'.l curr'IPI ReM) 82 ~.t. uplll \ UOI. \034A "eM) 82 Cl'\tc typ' 1 or111 C Mil) Ct9ry' 01'. 01'\ \,tr: illlC' 1l..a" \,tr: RII" ~tr O't: Chick Infor1lllt101'\ -.............. Ck Amtl ,,00 51 'aY'" ..,.", ",.,,,,,,, .................-........................................ ~ddr\ \ ~dar2: CHYI Still' : ".. ,""""","'" ,,,,,,,,. " OO,OE ". .60' HC,"' Sl' ,,,." ,,,,10'" .. , T ",,, "".". 00'"' " ." C"" t1 /0"" ." t,""'"'IO''' sS , T ,.... """" 00'" "'f "",,,. to" WCCI 300 136 3/36" 0 esc: .".". ." . sSC""" ",00 "ro" ..", """ """" c .."".,.' . st"""' $h'" """ ...'"" 1 ",'f" ..".".. ............-........--...........-.--..---.....--..... RaASOHS FOR COM1AC11 1) \,Ifl'. Front ooor '111'\'!. f\I'\\ln Runl 'ol'.~ aOOr'1 In~01~'cl. .. .) "... T1" ",60 " ., C' ."."", " 11 "Of"" ". ".. ..._ ... ,.".. ,'0"'" f,.. ,.,.," ,.."... (... ., ,.."". 'f'>' ... '>'_ ... >."..1_ ,.." f"" " ...,_ .""" .',- ...,... 'v.., .. ,.. .... ".. ".. "... ..,. " " "... .., "" ..." .... "" .f >"" C.... .,. ... ,.. .."", .,,_ ,. ...'" .... ,.... ..". S."..... .. ,.., 'thll'. hi h.~1 10CI1 d1r. 100k 11'\1'.0 prob, PLAINTIff'S " EXHIBIT.' -- 07/31/g7 CAIR Data FIle CAIR: 3438036 33 21 2 Page: . Tmp Address: SULLENBERGER Phi 717 732 7620 Phi PA 17021. CntrYI USA L.ngl E 1 Company: ACCENT FUNDING CUlt: MR GEORGE AD1: .27 ENOLA RD SUITE B AD21 ety/St/ZIP, ENOLA Co'ownl eOm~.nYl Rlpl ADll AD21 Cty/St/ZIP. St.tu. Ind Not.. ........................... Open.d by, SJMS Open Otl 060786 Typ, C Stat. C Cloled by, SJMS Clol.d Dt, 060786 Alrt. Currelp' SJM5 33 L.t ~pd. 060716 1211P SJMS 33 Cntc TYPI T Orlgl C M.11 Ctgry, Dt on Ltr, E_ICI R..p Ltrl Re.p Ltr Dtl H PhI PhI CntrYl L.ngl Check Informat1on ............~.. Ck Amt' '.00 51 P'YII' Addrl. AddrZI C1tYI St/ZIP, V.htcl. In'orm.tton .......................................................... VIN, lQ7KF26ClSS133861 YR/Modl', 85 DODGE RAM 2500 PICkUP 511 Zn/Sl,/Svc/Dlrl 35 A T 442g8 HERTRICH DODGE In Srv Data; 11/05/14 Svc Zn/Sl./Svc/Dlr: 33 K k 42436 CUMBERLAND VALLEY HOTO Curr M1/Km. M 30000 WCC, 300 . /36 3/36* 0 CSC. Recll'l 638 . SECONDARY HOOD LATCH 8RkT. SA~ETY StatuII C Reel'"708 . STEERING SHA~T SAFETY Seltu.. I General Narrative ............................................................ REASONS ~OR CONTACT. I) Antl'Lock 8r'~1 5y.tem . Nol..y *".) NARRATIVi ADDEO IY S. J. MAHONEY ON 06/~7/85 AT 12110AH 6.,.g5 Ownlr c., led blcau,. bra~11 ara nolley. Vlh1cla wla dllgnosed by de aler and they rlcommond re~'lcln, front rotor, and pad, Ind 11.0 ABS .enlor Wrltlr ,dvl,ed thlt rlpllr II not covered undlr w.rranty Ind IUI,e"ld Ilkl n, 'he d.,llr 11 rlth.r 'hln repl1c1nl pad. Ind rotors. could they b, cle.n ed and rl.urfeced. No lalll'lnce o"ered. 'Jm . ,4-87 I WU .. 71" U14101;f ~ Warranty Summary Dlt. Mllllgl ,.0 , Condition 1 ~-5- q S ~ ~ ~~~.J~ 2 e'~II!- cut ~ ~ .1\..1.<1 Q.Q.-~ 3 ~ ~ ~O ~J~~ 4 .! -\\-'1.-'- ~Cl1..C "'4~\" ~ . - IS '-1-~~ ~ 43o~"o 4g~ e 7 8 , . REPAIR HISTORY-SULLENBERGER VEHICLE DATE MILEAGE REPAIR ORDER REPAIR NUMBER DESCRIPTION 05/08/95 9,464 miles 41196 Paint runs in the right door and fender. Estimates from Spankey's and Gray's Auto Body Shop. Sublet to Gray's Auto Body for repair. 08/18/95 15,148 47064 Secondary hood latch miles recall. 10/17/95 18,908 50392 Truck would crank, miles but not start, Replace defective solenoid/fuel shutoff valve. 01/11/96 23,920 162617 Defective Wiper miles Motor. 06/07/96 31,258 63082 Defective ABS, miles screeching brakes. 09/26/97 53,088 196030 Transmission does miles not shift properlv. 12/27/97 unknown 053346 Batteries (2) needed. miles J PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 05-0;1-96 -2- REPAIR PROCEDURE: This bulletIn involves the replacement of the rear wheol cylinders vlith lo'rger displacement wheel cy lindors. 1. support vehicle and raise on suitoblo hoist. 2. Remove both rear wheels and brake drums. 3. usiny tube nut wrenches, disconnect brake line from wheel cylinder. 1. nemove the rear wheel c:ylin<1er attaching screws and remove wheel cylinder from the backing plate. 5. Clean support plate and lubricate shoe contact pods with Hopar Caliper Slide Grease (PIN JB993704). 6. Apply thin coat of Hopar Silicone Sealer (PiN 4319025) to wheel cylinder mounting surface of support plate. Sealer prevents road splash from entering brake drum past cylinder. 7. start brake line in cylinder inlet by hand. Do not tighten fitting at this time. 9. I~ount wheel cylinder on support plate and install cylinder attaching screws. 'righten screws to 20 Nm (15ft. 1be.) torque. 9. Tighten brake line fitting to 123 Nm (115 in. lbe.) torque. 10. Install brake shoe components removed to access wheel cylinder. 11. Adjust brake shoe to drum on both sides using brake gauge. 12. Install brake drums. 13. Fill and pressure bleed brake system with approved brake fluid. 14 Install wheel and tire assemblies and lower vehicle. POLICY: Reimbursable within the provisions of the warranty. TIHE ALLOWANCE: Labor operar.ion NO: 05-90-50-92 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.1 Hre. Related operation: 50-90-50-60/61 ........... 0.2 HI'!1 Dual Rear Wheals FAILURIl CODIIl: PO - New Part " , I " " , , '! 'I " ~ 01 to:: c ~ i:-, "':":J -.; 11'(' ~. .~, ; b,': 1"'. ,~ , ,-., 1;.";' , , ;-." '! (j)' I \ , " j . " ,,_I, -, 'j I' L,_ .1.- '~_,i Cl,\: I l f':~ IJ.., m ,5 u 0' '" . .. , ,',,' " , , " " , , " " ,Ii '\ 'I, , " .. . " I"~ " " , i. ..~_. r.:_ (:": , , il" J_' I .. >,: I.I!( ".... " , , " , IL. I.... I , , " ' , 'I' , ',1 I <. I L! " II 'I ,. . .)c\_ " Ij~ :-..i , , C.,) (:i' (J I" " , , ., " " , ' , , " " , " ". " " " " " , , ," i , , , , . II I. '...... lIilif!i1,' . :wr,1t,f " '.,,' , ..-. \ CAPOZZI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys at Law 1711 NonII fronlltntl . Harrilburr, PA IJI01 . T.ltphon. (111) 1])-4101 · fu (111) m-410) \ , \ Co~~N 0 9. 1998 "IJ' ,.. ""q",:",o", " " \1:J.r.i$;!;Y.ii'lil'lif~~r}.\;c;/,.;'I" '", . ";i _. '. t".Ni'- .--', :,i'"Wj~v2ill~ , ,JO . ~ " +,'1 " " ~ , '\ ~, . . f.' ~ . " ; " ~ , ~ \ , ( -' '';':llO-~-~,... , ."..,....'''''.,.......:.:..:.. " 0" Arbitrution in this CtlSC cun he hYPllsscd dlle tu ('lImherlund ('ullnt)' I.ueul 1{lIle DO I-I, which sets the urbitrution thrcshold ut $25,OOIl. In the instunt CIIse thc lllllullnt In controversy lilr exceeds $25,000.00 whcn thc umollnt c1aimcd IIndcr ('mult lis IIWllldcll, und uttonleys' fees urc added and/or the udditional treble dumagcs uader the c1uillls scllilrth ill ('ullnt IIll\'c addcd. II. PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: On or about Novcmber 4, 1994, Plalutiff pllrclmsed ancw II \')1)5 Dudgc Dakota 250 from Defendant's authorized new car dealcr, bcuring vehiclc idcntilicutlun number 1 B7KF26C1 SS 133961. The vehicle was purchased in Maryluud ullll rcgistercd in the Commonwealth of Pcnnsylvania. Said vehiclc has cxhihitcd nllml'tllUS dcfects since thc timc of purchase, as referenced in thc repair orders fllr thc vehicle. lhe prlmlll)' nun-eunformitlcs with this vehicle includc: defcctive paint, u no-stm1 condition. defectiv~ untiluck brakcs. und dcfective transmission. The following provides II bricf chrunulullY uf rcpuirs: 2/14/1)5 (dcfective paint); 8/18/95 (recall perfomlcd); 10/17/95 (dclectivc solcnoid/no.slart cunditlon); 1/11/96 (defective wiper motor); 6/13/96 (dcfectivc anti lock brakes); 7/2(,1'>7 (deleetive tnmsmission) and 12/27/97 (defective battery). On August 1. 1997, Mr. Ives lIell. un independent expert retained and employed by the National Center for Displlte Rcsulution tu inspect the subjlicl vehicle. did inspect the vchicle at 65 Millers Gap Road. Mr. IIcll verilkd ut ICllsl lilllr of the six COlllplainls he investigated. Mr. Bell verified the aIltilock brakc (pulling 10 thc rl~ht) pruhlem. thc plllling III the right and vibration problem, the defective nltors ullllthc delectlvc puint prohh:m. Mr. lves wlint un to say that overall, the vehicle bad poor cnginli pcrlimnunce. IIIlllmuJur drlvenhilit)' conccrns. ) A. CHlU>NOLOGY OF I{EPAIRS ^ true und correct chronology of rcpllir allcmpts lor which I'luintilT hus records is set forth in Pluintill's Exhibit list. B. DAMAGES.. PUlKHASE AND COLLATERAL CHAR(;ES: I. Purchuse Price: The purchase price of the vehicle totaled $29,308.00,l1Q! including all collateral charges. 2. Collateral Charges: a. Repairs: PlaintilThad to pay for repairs which should have been covered under warranty provisions. C. NEW VEHICLE LIMITED WARRANTIES: 3 YEAR/36.000 MILES Defendant issued several wrillen warranties for the vehicle at the time of sale, which it refers to as a "Limited New Vehicle Warranty", providing "bumper to bumper" coverage for defects and/or non-confonnities during the first 3 years und/or 36,000 mile period after actual retail delivery. Only nonnal wear and tear, abuse, neglect, and modification were excluded from coverage. It is undisputcd that warranty work was never declined by l\ Chrysler dealer based upon a warranty exclusion. It is also undisputed that routine maintenance was perfonned in accordance with the manufacturer's guidelines. It is ulso averred that Defendant is in possession of a copy of said warranty and is requested to produce same for trial. 3 VIII. EXlIIBIT LIST: PI. MWlulilcturer's express wrillen wnrranty (to be supplied by DcI\mdnnt) 1'2. I'urchnse Contmet 1'3. Repnir Order dnled Februnry 14, 1995 from Omy's Aulo Body Spccinlist. 1'4. Repair Ordcr dnted August 18, 1995, from Cumberland Valley Motors. 1'5. Repair Order dated October 17, 1995, Irom Cumberlnnd Valley Motors. P6. Repair Order dated June 13, 1996, from Cumberland Valley Motors. P7. Repair Order dated July 26, 1997, Irom Brenner Motors. P8. Repair Order dated December 27, 1997, from Batteries Plus. P9. Warrtlllty Claim History Printout Irom Chrysler. PIO. Computer Generated Customer Conlact Sheet for 11/30/94 tIIld 5/7/96. PIl. Independent VehieleInspection report of Mr. lves Bell dated August I, 1997. P12. Technical Service Bulletins issued by Chrysler that relate to the subject vehicle's concerns. Plaintiff expects Defendant Chrysler to stipulate to the admissibility of all exhibits, supra, save Exhibits "PI I" tIIld "1'12". Plaintifi'submits "I'll" is admissible because 15 USCA ~ 23103(C)(i) of the Magnuson-Moss Act states that "any decision in such procedure [NCDS] shall be admissible in evidencc." Mr. Bell's report assisted the NCDS in reaching its decision tIIld is thereby made a part by incorporation. Plaintill's Exhibit "1'12" is admissible bccause Technical Service Bulletins are tantamount to party admissions of defect by the mtlllufacturer. As a result, they should be admissible, presuming authcnticity. 8 d, "1 ., " ~ ~ , , ,... - ~ .. :j...: tt:{ Co"''; '. 7- I, " .( ~ (J ~t' , , ' " LJ... ...):~ ~~ "- - 'Ii'/) N !.\l~ _3 0- (j"'!1 "j'j? ... ~ 1')" , "..; ~. II.. ~ d 0 " ': , " " from the in-service date. The brakes, clutch discs and wipers are covered under the warranty only for the first year or 12,000 miles, again whichever comes first. Plaintiff's Complaint details the alleged repair attempts by Chrysler dealerships to the subject vehicle. The vehicle was returned to a Chrysler dealership 5 times during the warranty period. Plaintiffs have also included two (2) additional service record documents regarding the replacement of a battery and transmission work completed by Brenner Dodge in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The vehicle'S mileage at the time of these two (2) repairs was in e~cess of 50,000 miles and, therefore, well outside the warranty period. Defendant, Chrysler corporation, emphasizes that these service records and any testimony concerning these records and service results are inapplicable, irrelevant and unnecessary by virtue of the fact that the vehicle is out of warranty after 36,000 miles. With respect to the repair attempts and/or service records within the warranty period, Plaintiff's vehicle was returned 5 times to Cumberland Valley Motors in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania for alleged warranty repairs. On May 5, 1995, the vehicle was returned to Cumberland Valley Motors with concerns of paint appearance in the right door and fender. The allegation was that the factory paint job left pai,nt runs which was not aesthetically pleasing. Cumberland Valley Motors subcontracted this paint work to Gray's Autobody in Carlisle, Pennsylvania and according to Plaintiff Sullenberger, the work was performed. -2- Interestingly enough, chrysler's own zone technician inspected the vehicle in June of 1998 and confirmed that the paint runs still existed. Matthew Zielke of Chrysler Corporation will testify that if a paint run is painted, it is virtually impossible for it to show again, especially If the paint is removed to the original metal and a new coat is applied with paint sealant and clear coat. Gray's Autobody has been contacted with respect to confirming whether or not the work was ever done, however, Chrysler did issue payment for this work. Plaintiff next returned the vehicle to the Chrysler dealership on August 18, 1995 for a recall. A latch was repaired on the steering column of the vehicle at a time when the vehicle had approximately 15,148 miles on the odometer. Plaintiff has testified that he never experienced any problem whatsoever with the steering column or the steering of the vehicle during the first J.5,000 miles of use. On October 17, 1995, Plaintiff again returned the vehicle to Cumberland Valley Motors for replacement of a solenoid. The solenoid in effect allows the vehicle to start when turning the key. The vehicle'S solenoid froze and had to be replaced. After this was repaired, Plaintiff Sullenberger experienced no further problems with starting his engine or problems with the solenoid. No charge was assessed as with the pl"evious repair attempts and all expenses were covered under the warranty. On January 11, 1996, Plaintiff returned the vehicle for a fourth t illle to Cumberland Valley Motors for a wiper motor. The -3- mileage at this time was ~3,920 II\lle~ and the wiper motor was replaced. Plaintiff experienced no further problems with the wiper motor a fter replacement and the repai r was covered under the warranty. Finally, plaintiff returned the vehicle on June 7, 1996 to Cumberland Valley Motors when the vehicle had approximately 31,000 mil.es on the odometer. Complaints were made of a screeching noise from the left front wheel area, as well as a sensor problem with the ABS and brake lights on the dash. Again, Cumberland Valley Motors replaced the front disc brakes and rotors. They further corrected the sensor for the brake light and anti-lock brakes and no similar problems were experienced as evidenced by Plaintiff's testimony following this repair. As stated above, Plaintiff returned his vehicle to Brenner Motors for a shifting problem and to Batteries plus for replacement of the battery. However, the vehicle was brought to the aforementioned businesses for repairs when the vehicle had over 50,000 miles on the odometer. Clearly, the repair attempts were made outside of the warranty and the warranty does not contemplate such ,repairs. Defendant's position is that these repair attempts are irrelevant and no testimony should be accepted on the subsequent results. II. LEGAL ISSUES CONCERNING LIABILITY: -4- PlaIntiff's Complaint sounds C'uBentidlly in breach of warranty. The Magnuson-MosB GlainlfJ, as well 'Uj the Uniformed Commercial Code claims. can be adjudicated under the simple principle of breach of warranty. The standard for whether or not the warranty has been breached is simple. In order to determine whether or not there was a breach of warranty for which Chrysler Corporation is liable, the trier of fact must decide: 1) whether a warranty existed; 2) whether the Defendant, Chrysler Corporat ion, breached the warranty; and 3) whether the breach of warranty was a substantial factor in causing harm to the Plaintiff. Pa.S.S.J.I. (Civil) 9.00. Plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Chrysler breached its warranty to repair or replace parts that are proven to be defective in material or workmanship. Pa.S.S.J.I. (Civil) 5.50 (Burden of Proof). Notice is absolutely essential on the part of the Plaintiff to carry a burden for breach of warranty actions. The plaintiff must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered an alleged breach of the warranty notify Chrysler Corporation of the breach or be barred from any remedy. U.C.C. !i2607(3) (a); 13 P.S. !i2607 (c) (2). Failure to give notice by the plaintiff bars Mr. Sullenberger from recovering any amounts of money, including primary economic loss. Stoufman v. Keenan M,otors. Inc., 14 U.C.C. Rep. 1252 (Pll.C.P. 1973). Plaintiff now alleges that the vehicle pulls when braking and when driving the vehicle on a straight road, Plaintiff will -5- also teetify that the other primat"y problem at this time is that the vehicle does not perform well, and that there lis an engine defect, Plaintiff's testimony, it is believed, will claim that the vehicle has poor acceleration and poor engine performance in general. These two (2) claims, however, never existed and were never reported to Chrysler Corporation or any Chrysler authorized dealership during the five (5) times that the vehicle was presented to a Chrysler dealership for the warranty repairs (or during the first 36,000 miles). Plaintif f' s claims then must be barred by virtue of the fact that he did not give notice to Chrysler Corporation that there was a breach of the warranty. As outlined above, Chrysler Corporation accepted the vehicle on five (5) separate occasions during the warranty period and repaired the vehicle on each occasion. The plaintiff did not complain of any problems related to the warranty repairs completed during the first 36,000 miles by Cumberland Valley Motors. Several other invoices will be presented together with the testimony of Donald Kennedy of Cumberland Valley Motors confiming that no such complaints were ever made to a Chrysler dealership. Therefore, under the Uniformed Commercial Code, as well as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, plaintiff must not prevail in this case for failure of notice of breach. Plaintiff's Complaint also seeks damages under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Act. A violation of this law can be found only if the trier of fact concludes that Chrysler Corporation purposefully and/or wrongfully failed to comply with -6- the terms of the written guaranty or warranty given to the buyer at the time of thl;> purchase of the goods, or in this case, of the 1995 Dodge truck. 73 P.S. 201-2. Only malfeasance or improper performance of a contractual obligation raises a cause of action under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Horowitz v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co., 57 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 1995). Non-feasance is insufficient for a claim under Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices Act. Leo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 939 F.Supp. 1186 (Eastern District, Pennsylvania, 1996). P.S. 2607(c) (1). Defendant submits that plaintiff will present absolutely no evidence whatsoever with respect to Chrysler's behavior or actions in this case. There has been no testimony that Chrysler Corporation has purposefully and/or wrongfully failed to comply with the warranty. Again, as detailed above, Chrysler Corporation accepted the vehicle during the terms of the warranty and repaired the vehicle each time at no cost to the consumer. III. LEGAL ISSUES AS TO DAMAGES: The measure of damages in a breach of warranty case under the Magnuson-Moss Act and the Uniformed Commercial Code is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value that they would have be~n had they been as warranted. 13 Pa.C.S.A. ~2714(b). The measure of damages statutorily does no more than compensate the Plaintiff for the reduction in market value caused by the alleged defective condition that was not capable of being remedied under the terms -7- of the Chrysler's new car basic warranty. Damages, therefore, must be measured by the amount or cost of comprehensive repair to the alleged defective part(s) if the plaintiff has in fact proven a defect and cost. A.M. P.M. Pranchise Assoc. v. Atlantic JU.sj:)field CQ" 584 A.2d 915, 920, 5:26 Pa. 110 (1990) I K & C. Inc, v. Westinqhouse Electric Corp., 263 A.2d 390, 437 Pa. 303 (1970) Plaintiff cannot be awarded a refund of the vehicle purchase price or of Plaintiff's payments by virtue of the specific terms of Chrysler's express written warranty. 15 U.S.C. S2303(a) (1) (2). The amount of damages cannot be presumed, however, must be proven by an establishment of facts and the Plaintiff must offer evidence from which damages can be assessed with a reasonable degree of certainty. Gordon v. Tro~, 234 Pa. Super. 279, 338 A.2d 653 (1975). See, also, Maxwell v. Schaefer, 381 Par 13, 112 A.2d 69 (1955). Plaintiff's claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act mirrors those under the Uniformed Commercial Code as stated above. The Magnuson-Moss Act provides no substantive theory of liability or recovery outside the breach of warranty claims set forth under the Uniformed Commercial Code. The Plaintiff must prove by competent expert or informed testimony the value of the goods at the time and date of acceptance, as well as provide a damages assessment in the form of cost of repairs. It is simply inadequate for the Plaintiff only to testify with respect to general dissatisfaction with the product and enumerate various repairs that have been performed to fulfill this damages burden. -8- This Honorable Court is r"eminded that Chrysler's warranty is a limited warranty as opposed to a "full" warranty. Therefore, pursuant to 15 V.S.C. 92303 wIder the Magnuson-Moss Act, Plaintiffs cannot seek a refund or repurchase of the Dodge truck by Chrysler Corporation by virtue of the fact that a limited warranty is being litigated as opposed to a full warranty. It is important to note that Chrysler's limited warranty excludes consequential damages and the jury may not award these types of damages. Pennsylvania law has provided Chrysler Corporation the opportunity to limit the recovery of consequential and incidental damages which include loot time, inconvenience, loss of use of the truck, as well as the cost of rental cars and the loss of revenue from personal or commercial property. Pennsylvania law as indicated permits Chrysler Corporation to do this in their limited warranty. ~,r.hrysler limited warranty; 13 Pa.C.S.A. ~2719. Finally, the Court must be apprised of the critical limitations for recovery in this action by Mr. Sullenberger if in fact the vehicle has been purchased for commercial use. 80th the breach of warranty claims under Pennsylvania law, as well as claims under the Magnuson-Moss Act limit Plaintiff's right to recover damages or attorneys fees if, in fact, the vehicle is used for commercial use. plaintiff has testified that he cannot recall, or could not recall at least at the timp. of his deposition whether or not the vehicle was deducted as a commercial vehicle. Plaintiff further denies that it was -9- purchased primarily for commercial use. However, all documents regarding this vehicle include the notation "Accent Funding" AS the owner, and the Plaintiff confirms the vehicle was purchased under such name. Moreover, all repair orders include a tax exempt number which could only mean the vehicle was reg~stered for commercial use. Defendant plans to present to the Court at trial a certified motor vehicle registry, history and title from the Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicles and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation whi.ch will confirm whether or not the vehicle is registered for commercial use. If, in fact, the vehicle is registered for commercial use and the owner is "Accent Funding", Plaintiff's claims under the Magnuson-Moss Act must fail, as well as all claims presented under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Act. Those laws provide remedies only for consumers who purchase goods for family or household use. Likewise, Plaintiff's claims for attorneys fees are similarly barred by virtue of these statutes, if, in fact, Plaintiff's vehicle is a commercial vehicle. ~,73 P.S. ~201-9.2; 15 U.S.C. ~2301(1) and 2310 (d) (1) and (2). IV. CONCLUSION: Defendant, Chrysler Corporation, did not breach its warranty. This case must not focus on the condition of the vehicle today now that the Plaintiff has put approximately 60,000 miles on the vehicle. Chrysler's warranty is a limited warranty for the first 36,000 miles or 3 years, whichever comes first. -10- .' I,' I"~ , " " , , .... N t: , , fr.; ..:I j"": " .. ':>i .r "'in -. '-~A) -..~ ( .. .) ~~I , , rj=', 0_ ;) ~:,j r .l:,., -:"} l'i'j; 6'" ',; :" ill, ~ f.,J ,. , ;';!ll :,\_.J.... ,,~ l..JtLJ u. , 0- ..'_~ ~)... , , ' ~:. ..", , , 'j , 1,1,- t" l...' 0' IJ ,.., " ..,l " , , ",' , , , " "