Bogina Tro and Petition

f i Ll: [} [3'( Ci_ Ei\ K
K'.:;. 1;:s 1i~:CT cou;n

Kathryn Carter, #12969 i Hlr\D JUDIC I/\ L 01 Sf.
Assistant Attorney General TOPEKi\. KS
Office of the Attorney General
Consumer Protection Division
120 SW 10th Ave., 2nd Floor
ZOil NOV -b A II: 5-1
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1597
Tel: 785-296-3751
Fax: 785-291-3699
Kate. Carter@ag.ks.gov
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS

DIVISION
STATE OF KANSAS, ex rel. )

DEREK SCHMIDT, Attorney General, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) /
v. ) Case No. 2017-CV-:lt.)
)
JUSTIN M. BOGINA, an individual )
and )
AUTO ACCEPTANCE CENTER CORP, )
a corporation )
)
Defendants. )
(Pursuant to K.S.A. Chapter 60)
EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Now, on this date, comes before the Court Plaintiffs Ex Parte Temporary Restraining
Order. Plaintiff, State of Kansas, ex rel. Derek Schmidt, Kansas Attorney General, appears by and
through counsel, Assistant Attorneys General Kathryn Carter and Sarah Dietz. There are no other
appearances.
Whereupon the Court considers Plaintiffs petition, motion, verified affidavit and
accompanying exhibits, and memorandum in support of its requests. Being duly advised in the
premises, the Court finds the authorities presented support the following conclusions of law and
the verified affidavit and accompanying exhibits indicate the Plaintiff is likely to succeed in
presenting evidence that will permit the Court to conclude, after a trial on the merits, as follows:
1. The above-captioned matter was commenced by the State of Kansas, ex rel. Derek
Schmidt, Kansas Attorney General, against Defendants Auto Acceptance Center Corp, a Kansas
corporation, and Justin Bogina, an individual.
2. Plaintiff filed its ex parte motion for temporary restraining order and memorandum in
support pursuant to K.S.A. 50-632 along with Plaintiffs petition on November 3, 2017.
3. Defendant Auto Acceptance Center Corp is a Kansas For Profit Corporation with a
principal place of business at 400 SE 29th, Topeka, KS.
4. Defendant Justin Bogina is an individual and is the President and owner of Auto
Acceptance Center Corp. He resides at 815 SE Dupont, Tecumseh, KS 66542.
5. At all times relevant hereto, and in the ordinary course of business, Defendants have acted
as "suppliers," as such term is defined by K.S.A 50-624(c).
6. At all times relevant hereto, and in the ordinary course of business, Defendants have
engaged in "consumer transactions," as such term is defined by K.S.A. 50-624(c).
7. At all times relevant hereto, and in the ordinary course of business, Defendants acted as
"vehicle dealers" in Kansas, as that term is defined by K.S.A. 8-2401(a).
8. K.S.A. 50-632(a)(2) authorizes the Attorney General to seek a temporary restraining
order against a defendant who "has violated, is violating, or is otherwise likely to violate" the
Kansas Consumer Protection Act.
9. This Court has authority pursuant to K.S.A. 50-632(c)(6) to issue the Temporary
Restraining Order requested by the Attorney General.
2
10. Plaintiff has satisfied its burden of proof for obtaining a temporary restraining order as
required by K.S.A. 50-632(a)(2).
11. Defendants have engaged, or are currently engaging, or are otherwise likely to engage in
acts and practices in violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. 50-623 et seq.
12. In light of the foregoing, and the risk that Defendants may further harm persons through
violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act in the future, a temporary restraining order is
appropriate.
13. A temporary restraining order is necessary to ensure the Defendants' compliance with the
Kansas Consumer Protection Act during the pendency ofthis matter.
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Defendants, and the
Defendants' officers, agents, employees, and any persons acting in concert or participation with
the Defendants are temporarily enjoined from:
A. Advertising, soliciting, performing, accepting payments for, supervising, operating or
in any manner conducting any business related to the sale of property or services as
defined in K.S.A. 50-624(c) within the State of Kansas, specifically from engaging in
any consumer transactions.
B. Entering into, forming, organizing or reorganizing into any partnership, corporation,
sole proprietorship or any other legal structures, for the purpose of engaging in
consumer transactions.
C. Participating in C&H Auto Center LLC.
D. Continuing to participate in any partnership, corporation, sole proprietorship or any
other legal structures, for the purpose of engaging in consumer transactions.
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Court
authorizes agents and attorneys of the Office of the Kansas Attorney General to monitor the
Defendants' compliance with this Order pending further order of this Court or final resolution of
this matter
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Court retains
jurisdiction over this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE AND TIME SHOWN ON THE
ELECTRONIC FILE STAMP.
Respectfully Submitted,
Isl Derek Schmidt

Derek Schmidt, KS #17781
Attorney General
Topeka,Kansas 66612
(785) 296-2215
Isl Kathryn Carter

Kathryn Carter, #12969
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Kansas Attorney General
Tel: 785-296-3751
Kate. Carter@ag.ks.gov
Attorney for Plaintiff
4
Isl Sarah Dietz
Sarah Dietz, #27457
Office of Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt
120 SW 10th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Topeka, KS 66612
(785) 368-6204 Phone
sarah.dietz@ag.ks.gov
5
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
2017 Nov 03 PM 4:33
CLERK OF THE SHAWNEE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
CASE NUMBER: 2017-CV-000745
Tel: 785-296-3751
Fax: 785-291-3699
Kate.Carter@ag.ks.gov
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS

DIVISION ____
STATE OF KANSAS, ex rel. )

DEREK SCHMIDT, Attorney General, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2017-CV-_____
)
JUSTIN M. BOGINA, an individual )
and )
AUTO ACCEPTANCE CENTER CORP, )
a corporation )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
(Pursuant to K.S.A. Chapter 60)
PETITION
COMES NOW Plaintiff, State of Kansas, ex rel. Derek Schmidt, Kansas Attorney General,
by and through counsel Assistant Attorney General Kathryn Carter, and for its cause of action
against Defendants alleges and states as follows:
PARTIES
1. Derek Schmidt is the duly elected, qualified, and acting Attorney General for the
State of Kansas.
2. The Attorney Generals authority to bring this action is derived from the statutory
and common law of the State of Kansas, specifically the Kansas Consumer Protection Act,
1
K.S.A. 50-623, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the KCPA).
3. Defendant Auto Acceptance Center Corp is a Kansas For Profit Corporation with
a principal place of business at 400 SE 29th, Topeka, KS. Defendant Auto Acceptance Center
Corp and can be served at that address.
4. Defendant Justin Bogina is an individual and is the President and owner of Auto
Acceptance Center Corp. He resides at 815 SE Dupont, Tecumseh, KS 66542. Defendant Justin
Bogina can be served at that address.
5. All references to Defendants herein include acts individually, in concert, or by or
through employees, agents, representatives, affiliates, assignees and successors.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. All of the foregoing paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference.
7. This Court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction over this controversy
pursuant to the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, pursuant to K.S.A. 50-623, et seq., specifically
K.S.A. 50-638(a).
8. Venue is proper in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, pursuant to
K.S.A. 50-638(b).
NATURE OF THE CASE
10. Defendant Bogina owns and operates the business Defendant Auto Acceptance
Center Corp., an auto dealership. Defendant Bogina is the President, Secretary, Treasurer, sole
director, Resident Agent and office manager of Defendant Auto Acceptance Center Corp., with
exclusive control over Defendant Auto Acceptance Center Corp. Defendant Bogina makes the
day to day decisions for Defendant Auto Acceptance Center Corp., participates directly in the
2
acts and practices of Defendant Auto Acceptance Center Corp., and has the authority to control
such acts or practices.
11. Corporal Jason E. Harwood was a Topeka Police Officer who was slain in the line
of duty on September 7, 2014. Within 3 days thereafter Defendants began an advertising
campaign whereby Defendants stated that they would donate to the fallen officers memorial
fund at Topeka Police Credit Union $100 per vehicle sold through December 31, 2014, in honor
of Corporal Harwood. However, Defendants did not track sales for purposes of calculating the
donation, did not maintain an accounting of the donations, and did not make those donations as
represented. After Plaintiff initiated an investigation into the advertising campaign, payment was
made by Defendants to the officers widow, on or about April 14, 2016.
12. Defendants have sold vehicles to consumers representing the sale to be AS IS,
and failed to warrant merchantability of those vehicles.
13. Defendants have taken possession of a car as a trade-in, subject to an agreement
whereby Defendants would pay the balance due and owing on that vehicle, which they failed to
do.
14. Defendants have sold vehicles to consumers, without providing certificates of
title.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
16. At all times relevant hereto, and in the ordinary course of business, Defendants
have acted as suppliers, as such term is defined by K.S.A 50-624(c).
have engaged in consumer transactions, as such term is defined by K.S.A. 50-624(c).
3
acted as vehicle dealers in Kansas, as that term is defined by K.S.A. 8-2401(a).
CLAIMS
COUNT 1
Limiting Warranty of Merchantability
20. Beginning in approximately January 2016 and through December 2016, Defendants
completed car sales to Kansas consumers in which the contracts entitled We Owe Form stated
that the car was sold AS-IS. During this time period such sales included the sale of at least two
hundred and seventy-seven (277) vehicles, in violation of K.S.A. 50-639.
21. Defendants excluded, modified or otherwise attempted to limit the implied
warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose by representing auto sales as
being AS-IS in the contract entitled We Owe Forms executed with consumers.
22. Defendants acts of knowingly representing auto sales as being AS-IS is an act
or practice in violation of K.S.A. 50-639.
23. Defendants acts or practices are violations of the KCPA for which the Court has
authority to assess a penalty in the amount of $10,000.00 per violation, pursuant to K.S.A. 50-636,
in the aggregate of $2,770,000.00.
24. Defendants shall be held jointly and severally liable for the aforementioned
violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. 50-623 et seq.
COUNT 2
Deceptive Acts or Practices
4
26. Beginning in approximately January 2016 and through December 2016, Defendants
completed car sales to Kansas consumers in which the contracts entitled Buyers Order stated
that the car was sold without warranties, as follows or in substantially similar language to the
following:
27. During this time period such sales included the sale of at least two hundred and
seventy-seven (277) vehicles. Defendants representation of the sale of the vehicle AS IS NOT
EXPRESSLY WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED, WITH ALL FAULTS. in boilerplate car
sales contracts entitled Buyers Order, while simultaneously excepting the requirements of law,
in lower case type, and with no specific reference to Kansas law were willful use, in written
representations, of an ambiguity as to whether or not there was a warranty of merchantability in
no less than two hundred and seventy-seven (277) vehicle sales.
28. Defendants engaged in the willful use, in written representations, of an ambiguity
as to a material fact, and each instance is a deceptive act or practice, in violation of K.S.A. 50-
626(b)(2).
29. Defendants deceptive acts and practices are violations of the KCPA for which the
Court has authority to assess a penalty in the amount of $10,000.00 per violation, pursuant to
K.S.A. 50-636, in the aggregate of $2,770,000.00.
5
COUNT 3
Unconscionable Acts or Practices
32. Beginning in approximately January 2016 and through December 2016,
Defendants completed car sales to Kansas consumers in which the contracts entitled Buyers
Order stated that the car was sold without warranties, as follows or in substantially similar
language to the following:
33. During this time period such sales included the sale of at least two hundred and
seventy-seven (277) vehicles. Defendants representation of no implied or express warranties
except as required by law, with no specific reference to the applicable Kansas law, in
boilerplate car sales contracts entitled Buyers Order in no less than two hundred and seventy-
seven (277) vehicle sales took advantage of the inability of the consumers reasonably to protect
the consumers interests because of the consumers inability to understand the language of the
agreement.
34. Defendants took advantage of the inability of the consumers reasonably to protect
the consumers interests because of the consumers inability to understand the language of an
agreement, and each instance is an unconscionable act or practice, in violation of K.S.A. 50-
627(b)(1).
6
35. Defendants unconscionable acts and practices are violations of the KCPA for
which the Court has authority to assess a penalty in the amount of $10,000.00 per violation,
pursuant to K.S.A. 50-636, in the aggregate of $2,770,000.00.
COUNT 4
37. On June 15, 2015, Defendants sold a vehicle to Kansas consumer Edward Dudley
when the vehicle had a malfunctioning fuel pump, of which the consumer was given no notice,
had no knowledge, and had no ability to know.
38. Defendants, once Edward Dudley became aware of the defect and complained to
Defendants, refused to repair/replace the fuel pump.
39. On January, 15 2014, Defendants sold a vehicle to Kansas consumers Terry and
Stacey Burgess when the vehicle had a faulty transmission, of which the consumers were given no
notice, had no knowledge, and had no ability to know.
40. Defendants, once Terry and Stacey Burgess became aware of the defect and
complained to Defendants, refused to repair/replace the transmission.
41. On August 23, 2016, Defendants sold a vehicle to Kansas consumers Nathan and
Kristen Hacker when the vehicle had a defective ball joint of which the consumers were given no
notice, had no knowledge, and had no ability to know.
42. Defendants, once the consumers became aware of the defect and complained to
Defendants, refused to repair/replace the ball joint.
43. Defendants willfully failed to state material facts, or willfully concealed,
suppressed or omitted material facts; in violation of K.S.A. 50-626(b)(3).
7
44. Kansas consumers Edward Dudley, Kristen and Nathan Hacker, and Stacey and
Terry Burgess suffered financial losses due to Defendants violations.
45. Defendants willful failure to state material facts, or willful concealment,
suppression or omission of material facts, are deceptive acts or practices in violation of K.S.A. 50-
626.
46. Defendants deceptive acts or practices are violations of the KCPA for which the
Court has authority to assess a penalty in the amount of $10,000.00 per violation, in the aggregate
of $30,000, pursuant to K.S.A. 50-636.
47. Consumer Nathan Hacker was a member of the military at the time of transaction
described above, and a protected consumer as defined in K.S.A. 50-676(g), and the Court, thereby,
has authority to assess an enhanced civil penalty for a violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection
Act against a protected consumer in addition to any civil penalty otherwise provided by law of up
to $10,000, pursuant to K.S.A. 50-677.
violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. 50-623 et seq.
COUNT 5
50. The Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule 16 C.F.R. 455.2(a) requires car
dealers to complete and display a Buyers Guide on each used vehicle offered for sale. The Buyers
Guide must be displayed prominently and conspicuously in any location of the vehicle in such a
fashion that both sides are readily readable. The Buyers Guide is a standardized form which is
8
pictured in the C.F.R. The material terms of a car warranty are disclosed in the requisite Buyers
Guide.
51. On or about November 30, 2016, Defendants failed to display the requisite
Buyers Guide in no less than twenty (20) vehicles being displayed and offered for sale at
Defendants place of business at 400 SE 29th, Topeka, KS., thereby willfully failing to provide to
the consumer the material facts required to protect their rights and willfully failing to state a material
fact, or the willful concealment, suppression or omission of a material fact .
52. Defendants failure to display the Buyers Guide required by 16 C.F.R. 455.2 is a
deceptive act and practice in violation of K.S.A. 50-626(b)(3).
53. Each failure by Defendants to display the Buyers Guide in the window of a vehicle
being publicly displayed for sale, in violation of K.S.A. 50-626(b)(3), is a violation of the KCPA
for which the Court has authority to assess a penalty in the amount of $10,000.00 per violation, in
the aggregate of $200,000.
COUNT 6
56. On or about September 10, 2014, Defendants displayed on their Facebook page an
advertisement that stated, in part, Auto Acceptance Center will donate $100 per vehicle sold now
through December 31, 2014 to Corporal Harwoods Memorial Fund. We have contacted the
Topeka Police Credit Union and have partnered with them to make this donation.
9
57. On or about September 12, 2014 Defendants displayed on their Facebook page an
advertisement that stated, in part, PLEASE LIKE & SHARE, lets get the word out! Weve
already sold a few, lets keep it going! Also included in the advertisement was the banner:
58. On September 13, September 15, September 18, 2014, and November 3, 2014
Defendants displayed on their Facebook page a new advertisement that stated similar enticements.
59. Defendants sold no less than 97 cars in the time period identified in their
advertisement.
60. Defendants did not make contact with the Topeka Police Credit Union, did not
partner with them, did not track sales for purposes of calculating the donation, did not maintain
an accounting for purposes of the donation, and did not make those donations as represented.
61. Each sale of a vehicle by Defendants during the time period of September 10
through December 31, 2014, was transacted through the willful use of a falsehood and is a
deceptive act or practice, in violation of K.S.A. 50-626(b)(2).
Court has authority to assess a penalty in the amount of $10,000.00 per violation, in the aggregate
of $970,000.
10
COUNT 7
65. On or about August 23, 2016, Defendants executed a Pre-Repo Agreement with
consumers Nathan and Kristen Hacker. Defendants were not the entity providing financing for the
vehicle, thereby willfully using a falsehood as to a material fact in regards to the authority to
repossess the vehicle.
66. Defendants execution of the Pre-Repo Agreement insinuating authority to
repossess the vehicle is a deceptive act and practice in violation of K.S.A. 50-626(b)(2).
67. Defendants deceptive act or practice is a violation of the KCPA for which the
Court has authority to assess a penalty in the amount of $10,000.00 per violation, pursuant to
K.S.A. 50-636.
68. Consumer Nathan Hacker was a member of the military at the time transaction
described above, and a protected consumer as defined in K.S.A. 50-676(g), and the Court,
thereby, has authority to assess an enhanced civil penalty for a violation of the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act against a protected consumer in addition to any civil penalty otherwise provided
by law of up to $10,000, pursuant to K.S.A. 50-677.
COUNT 8
11
71. On or about August 23, 2016, Defendants executed a Pre-Repo Agreement with
consumers Nathan and Kristen Hacker. The Pre-Repo Agreement waives the requirement
pursuant to K.S.A. 16a-5-111, that a creditor send a notice to cure at last twenty (20) days before
repossession.
72. Defendants action limiting a consumers rights and benefits under the KCPA is an
unconscionable act and practice in violation of K.S.A. 50-625(a).
73. Defendants unconscionable act or practice is a violation of the KCPA for which
the Court has authority to assess a penalty in the amount of $10,000.00 per violation, pursuant to
K.S.A. 50-636.
74. Consumer Nathan Hacker was a member of the military at the time transaction
described above, and a protected consumer as defined in K.S.A. 50-676(g), and the Court, thereby,
has authority to assess an enhanced civil penalty for a violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection
Act against a protected consumer in addition to any civil penalty otherwise provided by law of up
to $10,000, pursuant to K.S.A. 50-677.
COUNT 9
77. On or about September 2, 2016, in the course of selling a vehicle to a Kansas
consumer, Defendants received a trade-in vehicle, a 2008 Chevy Suburban, subject to a loan with
Wells Fargo. A material term of the transaction was the agreement by Defendants to pay Wells
Fargo the balance owed on the consumers 2008 Chevy Suburban which Defendants accepted in
trade. Subsequently, Defendants informed the consumer that the traded-in 2008 Chevy Suburban
12
was sold to a third party within one week of the trade-in. Defendants failed to pay the balance
owed until on June 1, 2017, nine (9) months after the transaction, Defendants appeared to tender
payment by way of a check written on Defendants checking account at Heritage Bank in
Topeka, payable to Wells Fargo, in the amount of $16,674.86 to retire the loan against the 2008
Chevy Suburban. The check was declined and dishonored by Heritage Bank due to insufficient
funds on July 7, 2017 and again on July 13, 2017. As of October 31, 2017 the Wells Fargo loan
on the 2008 Chevy Suburban remains outstanding and unpaid. Between September 2, 2016 and
August 15, 2017, Defendants told the consumer, variously, that Defendants had made the
payment, that the check must have gotten lost, that there is an accounting error on Wells Fargo
part.
78. Defendants representation that they would pay the outstanding loan balance on
the 2008 Chevy Suburban and repeated misrepresentations as to their payment was willful use of
falsehood as to a material fact, and is a deceptive act in violation of K.S.A. 50-626A(b)(2);
79. Defendants deceptive act is a violation of the KCPA for which the Court has
authority to assess a penalty in the amount of $10,000.00 per violation, pursuant to K.S.A. 50-
636.
COUNT 10
82. On or about July 3, 2017 Defendants sold to consumer James Pulley a 2010
Nissan Altima, for which Defendants received a down payment from the consumer in the amount
13
of $4,500 and for which Defendants issued a temporary 60 day tag but for which Defendants
provided no title to the consumer.
83. Between July 3, 2017 and October 31, 2017 the consumer repeatedly requested
the delivery of the title and was repeatedly told that he would have it in a few days. As of
October 31, 2017, the consumer still did not have the title to the vehicle. The sale of a vehicle is
fraudulent and void without the assignment of the certificate of title within 60 days of the sale,
pursuant to K.S.A. 8-135.
84. On August 25, 2017 Defendants sold to consumer Joseph Schmidt a 2009
Chevy HHR, for which Defendants received a down payment from the consumer and for which
Defendants issued a temporary 60 day tag, and for which a promise of a title was provided by
Defendants, but no title.
85. As of October 31, 2017, the consumer still did not have the title to the vehicle.
The sale of a vehicle is fraudulent and void without the assignment of the certificate of title
within 60 days of the sale, pursuant to K.S.A. 8-135
86. Defendants engaged in the willful use, in oral representations, of a falsehood as to
a material fact by repeatedly telling two consumers they would receive certificates of title and
failing to provide the titles, in violation of K.S.A. 50-626(b)(2).
87. The consumers suffered financial loss due to Defendants violation.
Court has authority to assess a penalty in the amount of $10,000.00, pursuant to K.S.A. 50-636,
in the aggregate amount of $20,000.
89. Consumer Schmidt is over the age of 60 years, and a protected consumer as
defined in K.S.A. 50-676(g), and the Court, thereby, has authority to assess an enhanced civil
14
penalty for a violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act against a protected consumer in
addition to any civil penalty otherwise provided by law of up to $10,000, pursuant to K.S.A. 50-
677.
COUNT 11
92. On July 3, 2017 and August 25, 2017, Defendants completed car sales to two
Kansas consumers in which neither consumer received the title to the vehicle they purchased. As
of October 31, 2017, the consumers still have not received the titles to their vehicles.
93. Defendants failure to provide the consumers with the titles left the consumers
unable to receive a material benefit from the transaction is an unconscionable act or practice in
violation of K.S.A. 50-627(b)(3).
94. Defendants unconscionable acts and practices are violations of the KCPA for
which the Court has authority to assess a penalty in the amount of $10,000.00 per violation,
pursuant to K.S.A. 50-636, in the aggregate of $20,000.00.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
A. Defendants acts and practices recited above be determined and declared to be
deceptive and unconscionable acts and practices and violations of the KCPA, as provided by
15
K.S.A. 50-632(a)(1).
B. Defendants be enjoined from violating the KCPA, as provided by K.S.A. 50-
632(a)(2).
C. Defendants pay civil penalties including, but not limited to $10,000 per violation,
as authorized by K.S.A. 50-636.
D. Defendants pay an enhanced civil penalty of $10,000 for each violation of the
Kansas Consumer Protection Act, or such other amount as the Court deems just and equitable,
committed against a protected consumer, in addition to the civil penalty requested in paragraph
E, pursuant to K.S.A. 50-677.
E. Defendants pay restitution to the harmed consumers.
F. Defendants pay reasonable expenses and investigation fees pursuant to K.S.A. 50-
632(a)(4).
G. Defendants pay the costs of the action,
H. Such other relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Derek Schmidt________

Derek Schmidt, KS #17781
Attorney General
Topeka, Kansas 66612
(785) 296-2215
/s/ Kathryn Carter_____

16
Tel: 785-296-3751
Fax: 785-291-3699
Kate.Carter@ag.ks.gov
/s/ Sarah Dietz_______

Sarah Dietz, #27457
Tel: 785-296-3751
Fax: 785-291-3699
Sarah.Dietz@ag.ks.gov
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Section 5 of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution, and pursuant to K.S.A. 60-
238, Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury for all issues raised by this pleading which are so
triable.
/s/ Kathryn Carter_____

17

Bogina Tro and Petition

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Bogina Tro and Petition

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

f i Ll: [} [3'( Ci_ Ei\ K

K'.:;. 1;:s 1i~:CT cou;n

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS, ex rel. )

(Pursuant to K.S.A. Chapter 60)

EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

corporation, and Justin Bogina, an individual.

principal place of business at 400 SE 29th, Topeka, KS.

Acceptance Center Corp. He resides at 815 SE Dupont, Tecumseh, KS 66542.

as "suppliers," as such term is defined by K.S.A 50-624(c).

engaged in "consumer transactions," as such term is defined by K.S.A. 50-624(c).

"vehicle dealers" in Kansas, as that term is defined by K.S.A. 8-2401(a).

8. K.S.A. 50-632(a)(2) authorizes the Attorney General to seek a temporary restraining

Kansas Consumer Protection Act.

Restraining Order requested by the Attorney General.

required by K.S.A. 50-632(a)(2).

Kansas Consumer Protection Act during the pendency ofthis matter.

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Defendants, and the

the Defendants are temporarily enjoined from:

A. Advertising, soliciting, performing, accepting payments for, supervising, operating or

any consumer transactions.

B. Entering into, forming, organizing or reorganizing into any partnership, corporation,

C. Participating in C&H Auto Center LLC.

D. Continuing to participate in any partnership, corporation, sole proprietorship or any

other legal structures, for the purpose of engaging in consumer transactions.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Court retains

jurisdiction over this matter.

THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE AND TIME SHOWN ON THE

ELECTRONIC FILE STAMP.

Isl Derek Schmidt

Isl Kathryn Carter

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS, ex rel. )

against Defendants alleges and states as follows:

Corp and can be served at that address.

Bogina can be served at that address.

5. All references to Defendants herein include acts individually, in concert, or by or

through employees, agents, representatives, affiliates, assignees and successors.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. All of the foregoing paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference.

8. Venue is proper in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, pursuant to

NATURE OF THE CASE

9. All of the foregoing paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference.

such acts or practices.

of duty on September 7, 2014. Within 3 days thereafter Defendants began an advertising

made by Defendants to the officers widow, on or about April 14, 2016.

and failed to warrant merchantability of those vehicles.

13. Defendants have taken possession of a car as a trade-in, subject to an agreement

14. Defendants have sold vehicles to consumers, without providing certificates of

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

15. All of the foregoing paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference.

have acted as suppliers, as such term is defined by K.S.A 50-624(c).

have engaged in consumer transactions, as such term is defined by K.S.A. 50-624(c).

acted as vehicle dealers in Kansas, as that term is defined by K.S.A. 8-2401(a).

19. All of the foregoing paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference.

hundred and seventy-seven (277) vehicles, in violation of K.S.A. 50-639.

21. Defendants excluded, modified or otherwise attempted to limit the implied

or practice in violation of K.S.A. 50-639.

in the aggregate of $2,770,000.00.

violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. 50-623 et seq.

25. All of the foregoing paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference.

EXPRESSLY WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED, WITH ALL FAULTS. in boilerplate car

representations, of an ambiguity as to whether or not there was a warranty of merchantability in

no less than two hundred and seventy-seven (277) vehicle sales.