1. automotive and vehicles
2. vehicle brands
3. hyundai

Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page1 of 13
1
7
Eric H. Gibbs (SBN 178658)
Dylan Hughes (SBN 209113)
Steve Lopez (SBN 300540)
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone:
(510) 350-9700
Facsimile:
(510) 350-9701
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff
2
3
4
5
6
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
BETH GRAHAM, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated,
13
14
15
16
17
Case No. _______________
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff,
v.
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page2 of 13
1
NATURE OF THE CASE
2
1.
Plaintiff and the class members she proposes to represent are owners or lessees of 2011-
3
2015 Hyundai Sonatas that were manufactured with an undisclosed defect in the engine’s rotating
4
assembly. The rotating assembly cannot withstand the long-term stress generated within the Sonata’s
5
combustion chambers and fails within the useful life of the engine (most failures occur between 60,000
6
to 90,000 miles). When the rotating assembly fails, it does so without warning and causes the engine to
7
seize suddenly—leaving Sonata drivers without power and struggling to maneuver the vehicle to safety.
8
9
2.
Rather than addressing this safety problem by warning drivers and recalling its dangerous
vehicles, Hyundai has concealed the problem from consumers and implemented a concerted practice of
10
denying warranty coverage for failed engines. Hyundai tells Sonata owners that they must submit a
11
complete record of the vehicle’s maintenance history before making a warranty claim—even though it
12
knows that Sonata engines fail regardless of owner maintenance and that the faulty rotating assembly is
13
responsible. For those warranty claims that are submitted, Hyundai’s practice is to deny them based on
14
inadequate maintenance records or improper maintenance. Hyundai denies that engine failures are
15
widespread in Sonata vehicles and blames its customers for the problem—forcing them to pay as much
16
as $10,000 for an engine replacement.
3.
17
Plaintiff now brings this proposed class action against Hyundai for violating California’s
18
consumer protection laws. Among other things, Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Hyundai to
19
immediately disclose the existence of the rotating assembly defect and its associated risks to all existing
20
and prospective customers, to repair the defect and all resulting damage in Sonata vehicles free of
21
charge, and to cease selling Sonatas through its dealerships until the defect is repaired.
22
PARTIES
4.
23
24
Plaintiff Beth Graham is a citizen and resident of Pingree Grove, located in Kane County,
Illinois.
5.
25
Defendant Hyundai Motor America (“Hyundai”) is headquartered in Fountain Valley,
26
California. Hyundai is a wholly-owned American subsidiary of Hyundai Motor Company of Korea, for
27
which it serves as a general manager and exclusive distributor of Hyundai vehicles within the United
28
States.
1
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page3 of 13
1
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2
6.
This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the Class Action Fairness
3
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). The aggregated claims of the individual class members exceed the sum or
4
value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and this is a class action in which more than two-
5
thirds of the proposed plaintiff class, on the one hand, and Hyundai, on the other, are citizens of different
6
states.
7
7.
Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Hyundai resides in
8
this district and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in
9
this District.
10
11
INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
8.
Assignment is proper to the San Jose division of this District under Local Rule 3-2(c)-(e),
12
as a substantial part of the events or omissions which give rise to the claim occurred in San Jose County.
13
SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
14
15
16
9.
Defendant Hyundai is the manufacturer, distributor, and warrantor of all 2011-2015
Hyundai Sonata vehicles sold within the United States—referred to hereafter as “Class Vehicles.”
10.
Class Vehicles are sold with a 5-year / 60,000-mile New Vehicle Warranty and a 10-year
17
/100,000-mile Powertrain Warranty. The New Vehicle Warranty covers original components found to
18
be defective in material or workmanship under normal use and maintenance. The Powertrain Warranty
19
covers powertrain components—including the engine block and all internal parts—found to be defective
20
in material or workmanship under normal use and maintenance. The Powertrain Warranty applies only
21
to the original purchaser and to purchasers of certified pre-owned vehicles, and commences upon the
22
expiration of the New Vehicle Warranty.
23
11.
Unbeknownst to Hyundai’s consumers, Class Vehicles are also sold with defective
24
rotating assemblies that cause sudden and catastrophic engine failure. The rotating assembly is the part
25
of the engine responsible for converting linear motion into rotational motion. It is supposed to take the
26
power generated within the combustion chambers and transfer it from the pistons and through the
27
crankshaft. The entire rotating assembly, as it is called, consists of a crankshaft, pistons, piston
28
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page4 of 13
1
assembly, connecting rods, bearings, as well as the lubrication passages needed to keep the assembly
2
properly lubricated.
3
12.
The rotating assembly in Class Vehicles is not properly manufactured to withstand the
4
combustion forces over the life of the engine. It eventually succumbs to the long-term stress and stops
5
converting the piston’s linear motion to the rotational motion of the crankshaft. There are no warning
6
signs that the rotating assembly is about to fail, but when it does, it causes the engine to abruptly seize—
7
leaving Sonata drivers stranded and in need of a new engine block.
8
13.
Sudden Sonata engine seizures have become widespread as a result of the rotating
9
assembly defect. Over a hundred reports have been posted online—including on the National Highway
10
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) website and on Hyundai owner forums—and likely thousands
11
more have experienced the same thing but not taken the time to post about their experience. The issue
12
has become so common that when one Sonata owner suffered an engine seizure and had her car towed to
13
the local Hyundai dealership, she found that four other Sonatas were already at the dealership for the
14
same issue.
15
14.
16
17
The cost of replacing a Sonata engine that has failed because of the defect runs between
$5,000 and $10,000—depending on labor costs and whether the replacement engine is new or used.
15.
But it is not only the high cost of engine failures that has Sonata owners so concerned.
18
When the engines fail, they do so with no warning and expose drivers, passengers, and others on the
19
road to significant risk. Sonata owners have been driving at 70 miles per hour or in the middle of rush-
20
hour traffic when their engines suddenly froze, leaving their vehicles without power, without power
21
steering, and without power brakes. Making matters worse, smoke can billow from the engine and
22
obscure drivers’ vision as they attempt to maneuver the vehicle to safety. On rare occasions, the abrupt
23
loss of lubrication has even started a fire in the engine compartment. The experience of a sudden engine
24
failure is often a harrowing affair for Sonata owners—several of whom have reported near accidents and
25
called on Hyundai to conduct a safety recall.
26
27
16.
Hyundai is, of course, currently aware that Sonata engines are seizing in record numbers.
It provides Hyundai dealerships with replacement engines and carefully tracks both part sales and the
28
3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page5 of 13
1
type of repairs conducted by its dealerships. In addition, many Sonata owners have complained to their
2
dealership and to Hyundai’s corporate office—to no avail.
3
17.
The strong likelihood is that Hyundai knew of the rotating assembly defect much earlier,
4
likely before Class Vehicles were ever released to the public. Discovery and review of Hyundai’s
5
internal records will be necessary to know for certain, but the rotating assembly defect is one that would
6
typically be discovered during standard pre-release testing. Hyundai, like all automakers, subjects its
7
rotating assemblies to material stress tests and accelerated testing designed to ensure that the assembly
8
will withstand typical engine forces for at least 10 years and 150,000 miles. The severe and widespread
9
nature of this particular defect is unlikely to escape pre-release testing. More likely, Hyundai did not
10
know how to fix the issue quickly and was unwilling to incur the expense and delay associated with re-
11
manufacturing the Sonata’s rotating assembly.
12
18.
The prepared and concerted way in which Hyundai has responded as Sonata owners have
13
suffered from seized engines, strongly supports Plaintiff’s allegation that Hyundai has long known about
14
the rotating assembly defect. If Hyundai had learned only recently that its Sonatas are suffering from an
15
extremely high number of engine failures, one would acknowledge the issue and repair the vehicles
16
under warranty or pursuant to a safety recall. Instead, Hyundai is continuing to deny that anything is
17
wrong with the Sonata’s rotating assembly, actively concealing the widespread nature of the problem,
18
and systematically blaming its customers to minimize its warranty costs.
19
19.
Hyundai has never disclosed the rotating assembly defect to consumers—through its
20
dealerships or otherwise. It has not even stopped selling Sonata vehicles with defective rotating
21
assemblies; it continues to sell them—without including any warning—as both new vehicles and used
22
vehicles.
23
20.
Most engine failures occur within the 10-year /100,000-mile Powertrain Warranty that
24
Hyundai provides with its new and certified pre-owned vehicles, but Hyundai employs a concerted
25
practice to avoid paying for engine replacements. Even though Hyundai knows that the rotating
26
assembly defect—and not driver maintenance—is responsible for Sonata engine failures, it instructs its
27
dealers to blame them failures on poor maintenance and to tell Sonata owners that they must a complete
28
maintenance history (including all receipts) before they can make a warranty claim. For those Sonata
4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page6 of 13
1
owners who are not discouraged and do make a warranty claim, Hyundai’s practice is to deny warranty
2
coverage based on inadequate maintenance records or improper maintenance. And if a customer calls to
3
complain, Hyundai’s practice is to blame the problem on improper maintenance and deny that engine
4
failures are widespread in Sonatas and the result of a systemic defect.
5
21.
The safety hazard posed by the Sonata’s rotating assembly defect, along with the
6
exorbitant repair costs Hyundai is shifting to its consumers by systematically denying warranty
7
coverage, will only worsen if nothing is done soon. The Sonata rotating assembly defect typically takes
8
around 60,000 to 95,000 miles before it manifests itself in catastrophic engine failure—so the problem
9
will only get worse as more Sonata owners reach this mileage. To date, the vast majority of reported
10
engine failures have occurred in 2011 Sonatas. But 2012 Sonatas are following a similar pattern, with
11
complaints of engine seizures now beginning to accrue (just as they did about a year ago with 2011
12
Sonatas). And 2013-2015 Sonatas will likely follow the same pattern as well since Hyundai has yet to
13
fix the defect and continues to use the same defective rotating assembly in those vehicles as well.
14
15
16
17
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERIENCE
22.
Last year, Plaintiff Beth Graham purchased a used 2011 Hyundai Sonata with 65,000
miles from Elgin Hyundai in Elgin, Illinois.
23.
In January 2015, Ms. Graham’s husband was driving the Sonata on the highway during
18
rush hour when the engine suddenly seized and the engine turned off. Fortunately, Mr. Graham was
19
able to coast to the side of the highway and call a tow truck.
20
24.
At the time the engine seized, the Grahams had owned the car for about seven months
21
and put an additional 14,000 miles on the vehicle—for about 79,000 miles in all. Hyundai refused to
22
cover the full cost of the repair. After several calls to Hyundai’s regional office, Hyundai agreed to pay
23
a portion of the cost as a “goodwill gesture.” Ms. Graham was still required to pay $2,000 for the
24
engine repair, about $800 for a rental car while her Sonata was being repaired, and about $150 for
25
towing and an initial diagnosis.
26
25.
At no time before or after Ms. Graham purchased her Sonata did Hyundai or its
27
dealership inform her of the car’s rotating assembly defect or the defect’s implications for the engine
28
and her safety. Had she been told, Ms. Graham would not have purchased the 2011 Sonata.
5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page7 of 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
26.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff brings this action
on behalf of herself and a proposed class initially defined as:
All persons who purchased or leased a 2011-2015 Hyundai Sonata within the United
States.
27.
Excluded from the proposed class is Hyundai; any affiliate, parent, or subsidiary of
7
Hyundai; any entity in which Hyundai has a controlling interest; any officer, director, or employee of
8
Hyundai; any successor or assign of Hyundai; and any judge to whom this case is assigned and any
9
member of his or her immediate family.
10
28.
Numerosity. Hyundai has sold hundreds of thousands of Class Vehicles, such that there
11
are far too many class members to be practically joined in a single action. Class members may be
12
notified of the pendency of this action by mail, supplemented (if deemed necessary or appropriate by the
13
Court) by published notice.
14
29.
Existence and predominance of common questions. Common questions of law and fact
15
exist as to all members of the proposed class and predominate over questions affecting only individual
16
class members. These common questions include:
17
a.
Whether the rotating assembly in Class Vehicles is defective;
18
b.
Whether the defect causes sudden engine failure and poses a safety hazard to
consumers;
19
c.
20
customers;
21
d.
22
Whether the defect and its consequences would be considered material by an
objectively reasonable person; and
23
e.
24
Whether it is unfair under the UCL for Hyundai to sell or fail to recall dangerous
vehicles.
25
26
Whether Hyundai had a duty to disclose the defect and its consequences to its
30.
Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the proposed classes. Plaintiff
27
and the class members or she proposes to represent purchased a Class Vehicle that contains the same
28
defective rotating assembly, giving rise to substantially the same claims.
6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page8 of 13
1
31.
Adequacy. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the proposed classes because her
2
interests do not conflict with the interests of the class members she seeks to represent. Plaintiff has
3
retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action litigation, and Plaintiff intends to
4
prosecute this action vigorously.
5
32.
Superiority. The action may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) because common questions
6
predominate as described above and because a class action is the best available method for the fair and
7
efficient adjudication of this controversy. This litigation involves technical issues that will require
8
expert testimony and targeted discovery of a sophisticated defendant, and could not practically be taken
9
on by individual litigants. In addition, individual litigation of class members’ claims would be
10
impracticable and unduly burdensome to the court system and has the potential to lead to inconsistent
11
results. A class action presents fewer management problems and provides the benefits of single
12
adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
13
33.
In the alternative to class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), the proposed class may be
14
certified under Rule 23(b)(2) because Hyundai has acted or refused to act on grounds generally
15
applicable to the class, thereby making final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory appropriate
16
with respect to the class as a whole.
17
18
CHOICE OF LAW ALLEGATIONS
34.
The State of California has sufficient contacts to the conduct alleged herein such that
19
California law may be uniformly applied to the claims of the proposed nationwide class. Hyundai does
20
substantial business in California, its principal offices are located in California, and it maintains over 50
21
authorized dealerships in California—more than any other state.
22
35.
The conduct that forms the basis for each and every class members’ claims against
23
Hyundai emanated from Hyundai’s headquarters in Fountain Valley, California. Hyundai’s marketing
24
department, warranty department, customer affairs department, and engineering and design analysis
25
groups are all located in Fountain Valley, California, and it is those departments who were responsible
26
for the decision to conceal the rotating assembly defect from Hyundai’s customers and to systematically
27
deny warranty coverage for resulting engine failures based on improper maintenance and inadequate
28
maintenance records.
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page9 of 13
1
36.
The State of California also has the greatest interest in applying its law to class members’
2
claims. Its governmental interests include not only an interest in compensating resident consumers
3
under its consumer protection laws, but also what the State has characterized as a “compelling” interest
4
in using its laws to regulate a resident corporation and preserve a business climate free of fraud and
5
deceptive practices. Diamond Multimedia Sys. v. Sup. Ct., 19 Cal. 4th 1036, 1064 (1999).
6
37.
Were other states’ laws applied to class members’ claims, California’s interest in
7
discouraging resident corporations from engaging in the sort of unfair and deceptive practices alleged in
8
this complaint would be significantly impaired. California could not effectively regulate a corporate
9
citizen like Hyundai, who does business throughout the United States, if it can only ensure that
10
consumers from one of the fifty states affected by conduct that runs afoul of its laws are compensated.
11
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
For Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
Cal. Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq.
12
13
38.
Plaintiff re-alleges, as if fully set forth, each and every allegation herein.
14
39.
Hyundai has violated the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code §§
15
1770(a)(5), (7), (14), and (16), by engaging in unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive
16
acts and practices in connection with transactions—namely, the sale of Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and
17
class members—that are intended to result and have resulted in the sale and lease of goods to
18
consumers.
19
40.
In connection with the sale of Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and class members, Hyundai
20
omitted material information about those vehicles which it was legally obligated to disclose. Hyundai
21
has never informed Plaintiff or class members—at the point of sale or otherwise—that the rotating
22
assembly in Class Vehicles is defective and can cause sudden engine failure.
23
41.
The Class Vehicle’s faulty rotating assembly poses an unreasonable safety risk to
24
consumers and other members of the public with whom they share the road. Hyundai had exclusive
25
knowledge of the defect and has actively concealed it from consumers.
26
42.
As a result of Hyundai’s violations of the CLRA, Plaintiff and Class members have
27
suffered damages. Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased Class Vehicles had the defect
28
and associated risks been disclosed to them. In addition, Plaintiff and other class members have
8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page10 of 13
1
incurred significant repair costs, including expensive engine replacements, diagnostic expenses, towing
2
costs, and rental car expenses as a result of the defect. They are left with vehicles of diminished value
3
and utility because of the defect, which continues to pose a safety risk.
4
43.
Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Hyundai to immediately disclose the existence of the
5
rotating assembly defect and associated risks to all existing and prospective customers, to repair the
6
defect and all resulting damage in Class Vehicles free of charge, and to cease selling new or certified
7
pre-owned Class Vehicles through its dealerships until the defect is remedied. In addition, Plaintiff will
8
serve Hyundai with a notice letter to provide Hyundai with the opportunity to correct its business
9
practices pursuant to Civil Code § 1782. If Hyundai does not thereafter correct its business practices,
10
Plaintiff will amend this action to add claims for monetary relief, including restitution and actual
11
damages under the CLRA.
12
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.
13
14
44.
Plaintiff re-alleges, as if fully set forth, each and every allegation herein.
15
45.
Hyundai has violated and continues to violate California’s Unfair Competition Law
16
17
18
19
(UCL), which prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent acts and practices.
46.
Hyundai’s conduct, as alleged in this complaint, constitutes an unlawful practice under
the UCL in that it violates the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
47.
Hyundai’s failure to disclose material facts to class members—namely, the rotating
20
assembly defect and its implications for the vehicles’ engines and class members’ safety—constitutes a
21
fraudulent business practice under the UCL, as it is likely to deceive an objectively reasonable
22
consumer.
23
48.
Hyundai’s sale of defective vehicles and failure to recall those vehicles are each unfair
24
business practices under the UCL. The practices are unethical, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious
25
to consumers; any legitimate utility of the practices are outweighed by the harm to consumers; the injury
26
is not one that consumer reasonably could have avoid; and/or the practice run afoul of the public safety
27
policies underlying the Highway Safety Act, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and
28
California’s Secret Warranty Law, among others, as well as the consumer protection policies underlying
9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page11 of 13
1
the CLRA.
2
49.
As a result of Hyundai’s violations of the UCL, Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact and
3
lost money or property. Ms. Graham purchased a vehicle she would not otherwise have purchased,
4
suffered a catastrophic engine failure and incurred significant expense to replace the engine, and is left
5
with a vehicle of diminished value.
6
50.
Plaintiff and class members seek equitable relief under the UCL, including restitution of
7
all revenue accruing to Hyundai or its dealerships as a result of Hyundai’s violations, declaratory relief,
8
a permanent injunction prohibiting Hyundai from continuing to violate the UCL, and an award of
9
attorney fees and costs.
10
11
TOLLING
51.
Any applicable statute of limitations that might otherwise bar any class member’s claims
12
is tolled by Hyundai’s knowing and active concealment of the Class Vehicle’s defective rotating
13
assemblies. Hyundai kept Plaintiff and the members of the class ignorant of vital information essential
14
to the pursuit of their claims. Class members could not reasonably have discovered that their rotating
15
assemblies were defective until their engines suddenly seized. Even then, Hyundai continued to actively
16
conceal that the rotating assembly defect by denying the existence of a widespread problem and blaming
17
engine failures on poor maintenance.
18
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
19
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
20
a.
21
22
For an order certifying the proposed class and appointing Plaintiff and her counsel to
represent the class;
b.
For an order requiring Hyundai to immediately disclose the existence of the rotating
23
assembly defect and associated risks to all existing and prospective customers, to repair
24
the rotating assembly defect and all resulting damage in Class Vehicles free of charge,
25
and to cease selling Class Vehicles through its dealerships until the rotating assembly
26
defect is repaired;
27
28
10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page12 of 13
1
c.
For an order awarding Plaintiff and class members actual, statutory, punitive or any other
2
form of damages provided by statute, except that no monetary relief is presently sought
3
for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act;
4
d.
For an order awarding Plaintiff and class members restitution, disgorgement or other
5
equitable relief provided by statute or as the Court deems proper, except that no monetary
6
relief is presently sought for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act;
7
e.
8
9
judgment interest;
f.
10
11
12
For an order awarding Plaintiff and the members of the classes pre-judgment and post-
For an order awarding Plaintiff and the members of the classes reasonable attorney fees
and costs of suit, including expert witness fees; and
g.
For an order awarding such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
proper.
13
14
15
16
DATED: May 7, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
By:
/s/ Eric H. Gibbs
17
18
23
Dylan Hughes
Steve Lopez
One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone:
(510) 350-9700
Facsimile:
(510) 350-9701
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
24
Attorneys for Plaintiff
19
20
21
22
25
26
27
28
11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1 Filed05/07/15 Page13 of 13
1
2
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all claims so triable.
3
4
5
6
DATED: May 7, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
By:
/s/ Eric H. Gibbs
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Dylan Hughes
Steve Lopez
One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone:
(510) 350-9700
Facsimile:
(510) 350-9701
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
JS 44 (Rev. 12/12) cand rev (1/15/13)
Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1-1 Filed05/07/15 Page1 of 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
Beth Graham, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
Hyundai Motor America, Inc.
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
Kane County, IL
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
NOTE:
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Orange County, CA
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
Attorneys (If Known)
Eric H Gibbs
Gibbs Law Group LLP - One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125
Oakland, CA 94612 - (510) 350-9700
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1
U.S. Government
Plaintiff
’ 3
Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
’ 2
U.S. Government
Defendant
’ 4
Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
DEF
’ 1
Citizen of Another State
’ 2
’
2
Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business In Another State
’ 5
’ 5
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
’ 3
’
3
Foreign Nation
’ 6
’ 6
TORTS
110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran’s Benefits
160 Stockholders’ Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
’ 1
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers’
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
PERSONAL INJURY
’ 365 Personal Injury Product Liability
’ 367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
’ 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
’ 370 Other Fraud
’ 371 Truth in Lending
’ 380 Other Personal
Property Damage
’ 385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
’ 463 Alien Detainee
’ 510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
’ 530 General
’ 535 Death Penalty
Other:
’ 540 Mandamus & Other
’ 550 Civil Rights
’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement
’ 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881
’ 690 Other
and One Box for Defendant)
PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
’ 4
’ 4
of Business In This State
BANKRUPTCY
’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158
’ 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
’ 820 Copyrights
’ 830 Patent
’ 840 Trademark
’
’
’
’
’
’
LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act
’
’
’
’
’
SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
’ 871 IRS—Third Party
26 USC 7609
OTHER STATUTES
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
375 False Claims Act
400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes
IMMIGRATION
’ 462 Naturalization Application
’ 465 Other Immigration
Actions
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original
Proceeding
’ 2 Removed from
State Court
’ 3
Remanded from
Appellate Court
’ 4 Reinstated or
Reopened
’ 5 Transferred from
Another District
(specify)
’ 6 Multidistrict
Litigation
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Violations of California statutes relating to unfair competition
DEMAND $
’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE Hon. Beth L. Freeman
DATE
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
’ Yes
’ No
JURY DEMAND:
DOCKET NUMBER C 5:15-1685
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
/s/ Eric H. Gibbs
05/07/2015
,;',9,6,21$/$66,*10(17&LYLO/5
(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
Print
( ) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND
Save As...
( ) SAN JOSE
( ) EUREKA
Reset
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/12)
Case5:15-cv-02071 Document1-1 Filed05/07/15 Page2 of 2
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a)
(b)
(c)
Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II.
Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III.
Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV.
Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V.
Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.
Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.
When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
VI.
Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII.
Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.