Chapter 2

Automobile Claims: Lemon RV Laundering, Rebuilt Wrecks, Padded Repair Bills, FTC Used Car Rule (OH)

Ronald L. Burdge is an attorney with the Burdge Law Office Co., LPA, 2299 Miamisburg Centerville Rd., Dayton, OH 45459, Telephone: (937) 432-9500, Fax: (520) 4329503, e-mail: Ron@OhioLemonLaw.com, websites: www.OhioLemonLaw.com, www.RvLemonLaw.com, www.KentuckyLemonLaw.com, www.OhioConsumerLaw.com and others. Co-counseling and coaching website: www.TheLawCoach.com. Ronald L. Burdge is in the private practice of law in Dayton, Ohio, and is known throughout Ohio as a leading Consumer Law attorney who has represented literally thousands of consumers in lemon car lawsuits over the last twenty years, and actively co-counsels and coaches other consumer law attorneys. He has authored articles and lectured on the Ohio Lemon Law, Assistive Device Lemon Laws, Recreation Vehicle Lemon Laws. Although the majority of his court cases have involved defective motor vehicle litigation, he has also represented consumers in UDAP, product defect, odometer tampering, contract breach, fraud, and commercial litigation in both state and federal courts throughout Ohio, in Indiana and Kentucky. With extensive trial and appellate experience related to motor vehicles and dealership business practices, he has also successfully argued cases in various courts of appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court. He was admitted to the Ohio Bar in 1978. His bar admissions include all Ohio state courts, several United States District Courts (Ohio and Indiana), 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. He is a member of numerous bar associations, has obtained several multi million dollar verdicts, and handled numerous ground breaking Consumer Law and Lemon Law cases. Section 2.1.1 is a complaint against the manufacturer, seller and financer of a resold lemon recreational vehicle (RV) without the disclosure of 47 of the 49 prior defects in the RV.1 Claims are made under the Ohio Lemon Law, the Federal Warranty Act, the Ohio Consumer Act, the Ohio Motor Vehicle Sales Rule, the Truth in Lending Act, and for fraud. The complaint seeks actual, punitive and statutory damages, attorney fees, declaratory relief, and replacement or a buyback of the RV. Section 2.1.2 are combined interrogatories, requests for admissions, and document requests to the dealer. Section 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 are similar discovery requests to the manufacturer and the financer respectively. Sections 2.1.5 and 2.1.6 are followup discovery requests to the dealer and financer. Section 2.1.7 is a letter to the client explaining the attorneys settlement strategy. Section 2.1.8 is a settlement offer by the consumers seeking a take back of the RV, damages, attorney fees, cy pres payments to public interest organizations and the state consumer protection office, and a consent decree. Section 2.1.9 is a graphically based presentation by the consumers prepared for a mediation conference. Section 2.1.10 is a chart of the repair history of the vehicle. Section 2.2 is a complaint against a car dealer and the financer for selling a rebuilt wrecked rental car as a one-owner, garage kept car that had never been in rain, sleet, or snow.2 The dealer offered guaranteed financing and a warranty. The complaint alleges misrepresentations, unfair and unconscionable conduct in violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, the Ohio Motor Vehicle Sales Rule, the FTC Used Car Rule, the privacy
1 2

See National Consumer Law Center, Automobile Fraud 1.4.6, 2.1.5, 2.4.5.5, 6.3 (2d ed. 2003 and Supp.). See National Consumer Law Center, Automobile Fraud 2.1.4 (2d ed. 2003 and Supp.).

protections of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Institutions Act, breach of contract, breach of contract, Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and Fraud. The complaint seeks actual, statutory, and punitive damages, and attorney fees. Section 2.3 is a class action complaint against a car dealer for padding repair bills with deceptive surcharges, such as Misc, EPA/Shop Supplies, and Cinergy Surcharge.3 The complaint alleges that these surcharges resulted in $185,000 of deceptive overcharges each year that should be returned to the class with statutory damages, and attorney fees. Section 2.4 is a class complaint against a car dealer and the supplier of a used car window sticker that violated the FTC Used Car Buyers Guide Window Sticker requirements.4 The complaint alleged that the violation of the FTC rule violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act and sought $200 minimum damages for each member of the class, injunctive relief and attorney fees.

3 4

See generally, National Consumer Law Center, Consumer Warrrany Law 17.8 (2d ed. 2001 and Supp.). See generally, National Consumer Law Center, Consumer Warrrany Law 14.7 (2d ed. 2001 and Supp.).

2.1 Undisclosed Sale of Lemon Buy-Back RV

2.1.1 Complaint
IN LICKING COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, OHIO [CONSUMER 1 and CONSUMER 2], Plaintiffs, v. FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC. dba FLEETWOOD MOTORHOMES OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC. P.O. BOX 59933 RIVERSIDE, CA 92517 AND RCD SALES COMPANY LTD C/O CHARLES E. HAIRE, S/A 1990 HEBRON ROAD HEBRON, OH 43025-0000 AND FIRST MERIT BANK, NA 295 FIRST MAIN CIRCLE AKRON OH 44309 Defendants. Case No. Judge COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND (LEMON LAW) FIRST CLAIM: OHIO LEMON LAW 1. This case involves what is called, in the parlance of the car business, lemon laundering, which is where the manufacturer buys back a lemon motor vehicle and then the vehicle gets resold through a process that prevents a subsequent consumer purchaser from fully understanding the nature and extent of the unrepairable defects that plagued the vehicle. In this case the vehicle is a 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow Recreational Vehicle, bearing VIN [redacted],

plagued with defects. Since purchasing the motor home, [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] have learned the vehicle was repurchased from the original owner in Texas who had a laundry list of problems 49 different problems to be exact which is a far cry from the 2 problems that were disclosed at the date of sale. [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] have personally experienced at least 20 different problems, to date, and are afraid they have at least another 29 problems ahead of them, assuming none of their problems are new which is probably not a good assumption given the history of this vehicle. 2. Plaintiffs first learned their vehicle was a buyback from the Dealer, during the course of signing the purchase paperwork. The repurchase disclosure had been sandwiched in between the myriad of sales documents and said there had been just two problems: water leaks and black tank piling. Plaintiffs later learned, from the original owner, that the motor home had been plagued with a huge number of problems. At no time were they told that the title had to be branded as a Lemon Law buyback. If they had been told the truth about the vehicle or that the law required the title be branded, they would never have purchased the vehicle. 3. At the date of sale, after most of the sales documents had already been signed, the Dealer presented Plaintiffs with a form called a Fleetwood Disclosure of Vehicle Repurchase or Reacquisition Notice and trivialized the significance of it, claiming that everything had been properly repaired and that the form really showed [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] that the vehicle was still covered by warranty and was fixed. 4. When the Dealer sold this reacquired vehicle to Plaintiffs, it did so under the Ohio Lemon Law, and the Lemon Law requires that the title be branded before the sale. 5. Excited to get a low-mileage motor home that was a one-owner vehicle, in such supposedly good condition, and warranted by the Manufacturer to be free of the only two problems the RV had, [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] agreed to pay the Dealer $74,228.78 for the vehicle. 6. This claim is for violation of the Ohio Lemon Law5 and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act6 by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.7 7. The allegations of all other paragraphs and claims in this pleading are incorporated as if fully rewritten herein. 8. Plaintiffs performed all conditions precedent to private enforcement of the Ohio Lemon Law and the Consumer Act. 9. The vehicle involved in this case qualifies as a lemon, both generically and under the Lemon Law; it was a lemon when it was first sold with Fleetwoods warranty and it was a lemon when it was sold to Plaintiffs with Fleetwoods warranty. 10. As a result of the above, and the allegations below, inter alia, the Manufacturer violated the Ohio Lemon Law and the Consumer Act to the injury of Plaintiffs and the rights and obligations of the parties have become fixed under the law. 11. At all times relevant, Plaintiffs were each a consumer8. 12. At all times relevant, RCD Sales Company, LTD9 was and is a corporation and a supplier10 and merchant11 and did business within the jurisdiction of this Court.
Revised Code 1345.71 et seq., hereafter referred to as the Lemon Law. Revised Code 1345.01 et seq., hereafter referred to as the Consumer Act. 7 Hereafter referred to as the Manufacturer. 8 Within the meaning of Ohios Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices statute, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.01(D). 9 Hereafter referred to as the Dealer. 10 Within the meaning of R.C. 1345.01(C).
6 5

13. At all times relevant, First Merit Bank, NA12 was and is a corporation and was engaged in the business of financing the sale of motor vehicles by Ohio consumers for said consumers personal use, and was a corporation licensed to do business in Ohio, and was a creditor and did business within the jurisdiction of this Court. 14. Plaintiffs obligation to pay the Financier under the contract between them is subject to all claims and defenses which Plaintiffs have against the Dealer, as are alleged more specifically below, and the Financier is not a holder in due course of any instrument signed by Plaintiffs and the Financier is bound by its contract with Plaintiffs to be jointly and severally liable for all remedies and relief which Plaintiffs may obtain against Dealer up to the amounts paid or owed by Plaintiffs to Financier. 15. At all times relevant, the Manufacturer was a corporation and a supplier13 and merchant14 engaged in business activities within the jurisdiction of this court. 16. On or about July 27, 2002 the Plaintiffs and the Dealer and the Financier and the Manufacturer all entered into a consumer transaction,15 in that the Dealer agreed to arrange to sell a certain vehicle to the Plaintiffs and, as part of the deal, the Plaintiffs agreed to buy that vehicle from the Dealer, and as part of the deal the Dealer agreed to arrange, and did so arrange, for the Financier to extend credit to Plaintiffs to finance the transaction, which it agreed to do, and the Dealer agreed to perform services related to the transaction and its consummation to and for the Plaintiffs and the Financier and the Manufacturer, and as part of the deal the Manufacturer agreed to warrant the vehicle to be free from defects, the vehicle being a certain 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow 34N Class A motor coach. 17. The goods16 which were the subject of the agreement included a certain 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow 34N motor coach. 18. A copy of the sales contract is attached as Exhibit 1; a copy of the finance contract is attached as Exhibit 2; and a copy of the Fleetwood repurchase or reacquisition notice is attached as Exhibit 3. 19. The manufacturer violated R.C. 1345.76(A) because, inter alia, it resold a vehicle in this state without complying with R.C. 1345.76 in those manners described below. 20. The manufacturer, or its agent, violated R.C. 1345.76(A)(2) because, inter alia, it failed to provide the Plaintiffs with a form that complied with the Lemon Law disclosure notice before having Plaintiffs sign any document related to the sale. 21. The manufacturer, or its agent, violated R.C. 1345.76(A)(2) because, inter alia, it failed to provide the Plaintiffs with a form that complied with the Ohio Lemon Law disclosure notice by stating words substantially the same as those required by law to be contained in the disclosure notice. R.C. 1345.76(A)(2) makes it illegal for a Manufacturer or a Dealer to resell a motor vehicle in Ohio unless the manufacturer provides to the consumer, prior to obtaining the signature of the consumer on any document, a written statement on a separate piece of paper, in ten-point type, all capital letters, in substantially the following form:

11 12

Within the meaning of R.C. 1302.01(A)(5). Hereafter referred to as the Financier. 13 Within the meaning of R.C. 1345.01(C). 14 Within the meaning of R.C. 1302.01(A)(5). 15 Within the meaning of R.C. 1345.01(A). 16 Within the meaning of R.C. 1310.01(A)(8).

WARNING: THIS VEHICLE PREVIOUSLY WAS SOLD AS NEW. IT WAS RETURNED TO THE MANUFACTURER OR ITS AGENT IN EXCHANGE FOR A REPLACEMENT VEHICLE OR REFUND AS A RESULT OF THE FOLLOWING DEFECT(S) OR CONDITION(S): 1._____________________________________________________________ 2._____________________________________________________________ 3._____________________________________________________________ 4._____________________________________________________________ 5._____________________________________________________________ ____________________ DATE _______________________ BUYERS SIGNATURE

The Manufacturer shall list each defect or condition on a separate line of the written statement provided to the consumer. The form used by Fleetwood, attached as Exhibit 3, completely fails to comply with the law. 22. The Manufacturer also violated the Texas Lemon Law because, inter alia, its form failed to include a toll-free telephone number of the Texas Commission that will enable a purchaser of a repurchased or replaced vehicle to obtain information about the condition or defect that was the basis of the order for repurchase or replacement, and failed to restore the cause of the repurchase or replacement to factory specifications and issue a new 12-month, 12,000 mile warranty on the vehicle. 23. The Manufacturer, or its agent, violated R.C. 1345.76(A)(2) because, inter alia, it failed to provide the Plaintiffs with a form that complied with the Lemon Law disclosure notice by stating on the form each defect or condition on a separate line. 24. The Manufacturer, or its agent, violated R.C. 1345.76(C) because, inter alia, it failed to obtain a certificate of title for the vehicle which was branded as required by law. 25. The Manufacturer, or its agent, violated R.C. 1345.76(D) because, inter alia, when it applied for a certificate title for the vehicle, it failed to clearly and unequivocally tell the clerk of court that the vehicle for which it was applying to obtain a certificate of title was a buyback vehicle and that the title it was applying for was a buyback certificate of title and not a certificate of title. 26. The 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow 34N motor coach which is the subject of this case was manufactured and/or distributed by the Manufacturer, reacquired thereafter by the Manufacturer, and then resold in Ohio by the Dealer. 27. Plaintiffs purchased the vehicle in reliance on the advertising and representations made to them by the Manufacturer and the Dealer. 28. The transaction between the defendants Dealer and Manufacturer, as it related to the Plaintiffs, constituted a transaction between merchants17. 29. After purchasing the vehicle, Plaintiffs discovered that it did not conform to the representations of the Dealer and the Manufacturer inasmuch as it developed continuing malfunctions, defects and problems, and now Plaintiffs have learned that the title to their vehicle is defective.
17

Within the meaning of R.C. 1302.01(A)(7).

30. Through its advertising and otherwise, the Manufacturer represented that the vehicles it built were fit for the purpose for which they were designed, that they are a safe and suitable vehicles for their intended designed use, reliably operable for private transportation. 31. Through its one year warranty, the Manufacturer represented that the vehicles which it reacquires under the Lemon Law, including this one, were repaired before resale, and that they are again made fit for the purpose for which they were designed, that they are again made to be a safe and suitable vehicles for their intended designed use, reliably operable for private transportation. 32. Plaintiffs purchased the vehicle in reliance upon the belief that the Manufacturer possessed a high degree of manufacturing skill and judgment. 33. The above conditions of the vehicle, and the Dealers failure to comply with the Lemon Law, constituted a breach of the Dealers warranties and caused a defective title to be issued to Plaintiffs. 34. The malfunctions and defects in the vehicle and its title severely and substantially impaired its value to Plaintiffs. 35. Plaintiff provided the Manufacturer and/or one or more of its authorized and/or franchised dealers with a reasonable number of opportunities to repair the vehicle but they have each neglected, failed, refused or otherwise been unable to do so within a reasonable amount of time or a reasonable number of attempts. 36. As a result of the above facts, the Manufacturer breached its warranties and representations with respect to the vehicle, and its obligations under the Lemon Law. 37. As a result of the above facts, the Dealer breached its warranties and representations with respect to the vehicle, and the obligations delegated to it by the Manufacturer under the Lemon Law. 38. The Manufacturer and/or one or more of its authorized and/or franchised dealers, and the Dealer, and the Financier had notices of the breaches of their respective representations and warranties and contracts and agreements, and violations of the applicable laws, and had a reasonable amount of time and a reasonable number of opportunities to cure, all within a reasonable time. 39. Plaintiffs suffered and shall continue to suffer actual, incidental and consequential damages as a direct and proximate result of the inability or other failure of the said defendants joint and several breaches in an amount within the monetary jurisdiction of this court. SECOND CLAIM: FEDERAL WARRANTY ACT 40. The allegations of all other paragraphs and claims in this pleading are incorporated as if fully rewritten herein. 41. This claim is for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act18 and Breach of Warranty and violation of the Consumer Act by the Manufacturer. 42. As a result of the above, inter alia, the Manufacturer is in violation of the Warranty Act by its failure to comply with its warranty obligations. 43. As a result of the above, inter alia, the Manufacturer breached its warranty to Plaintiffs.

18

15 U.S.C. 2301, et seq.

44. As a result of the above, inter alia, the Manufacturer has committed one or more unfair or deceptive acts or practices before, during or after a consumer transaction between Plaintiffs and one or more defendants. THIRD CLAIM: CONSUMER ACT 45. The allegations of all other paragraphs and claims in this pleading are incorporated as if fully rewritten herein. 46. This claim is for violation of the Consumer Act by the Manufacturer and the Dealer and for which the Financier is liable. 47. The Dealer sold Plaintiffs a vehicle with a defective title and knew or should have known that the defective title would prevent Plaintiffs from transferring good title at a future date. 48. As a result of the above, inter alia, the Dealer violated the Lemon Law. 49. As a result of the above, inter alia, the Manufacturer and the Dealer each violated the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. 50. As a result of the above, inter alia, the Manufacturer and the Dealer each breached their respective warranties. 51. During the course of the sale, the Dealer also violated the FTC Used Car Window Sticker Rule19 and the Consumer Act. 52. At all times relevant, the motor vehicle the Dealer sold Plaintiffs was a vehicle20 and a used vehicle21, said defendant was a Dealer22, and Plaintiffs were each a consumer23. 53. Dealer sold or offered for sale a used vehicle in or affecting commerce, as commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. 54. The Dealer entered into a consumer transaction with Plaintiffs and at that time sold or offered for sale a used vehicle in or affecting commerce, as commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, and at that time failed to have properly posted on the subject vehicle a window sticker form, a.k.a. a Buyers Guide form, that complied with the FTC Used Car Window Sticker Rule and also failed to make available, prior to sale, the terms of any written warranty offered in connection with the sale of said vehicle. 55. The Dealer entered into a consumer transaction with Plaintiffs and at that time said Dealer offered a used vehicle for sale to these consumer-Plaintiffs without preparing, filling in as applicable and displaying on that vehicle a Buyers Guide. 56. The Dealer entered into a consumer transaction with Plaintiffs and at that time said Dealer failed to give these buyer-Plaintiffs the window form displayed under 16 C.F.R. 455.2 containing all of the disclosures required by the Rule and reflecting the warranty coverage agreed upon. 57. As a result of the above, inter alia, Dealer committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of the FTCs Used Car Window Sticker Rule and the Consumer Act.

19 20

16 C.F.R. 455.1 Within the meaning of 16 C.F.R. 455.1(c)(1). 21 Within the meaning of 16 C.F.R. 455.1(C)(2). 22 Within the meaning of 16 C.F.R. 455.1(c)(3). 23 Within the meaning of 16 C.F.R. 455.1(c)(4).

58. As a result of the above, inter alia, the Manufacturer and the Dealer each committed one or more unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Consumer Act, before, during or after one or more consumer transactions between Plaintiffs and one or more of the defendants. FOURTH CLAIM: MOTOR VEHICLE SALES RULE 59. The allegations of all other paragraphs and claims in this pleading are incorporated as if fully rewritten herein. 60. This claim is for additional violations of the Consumer Act and the Motor Vehicle Sales Rule24 by the Dealer and for which the Financier is liable. 61. As a result of the above, inter alia, during the course of a consumer transaction between Plaintiffs and Dealer and Financier, the Dealer used a statement, layout, or illustration in an advertisement or sales presentation which could create in the mind of a reasonable consumer a false impression as to a material aspect of an advertised or offered vehicle, in violation of O.A.C. 109:4-3-16(B)(3). 62. As a result of the above, inter alia, during the course of a consumer transaction between Plaintiffs and Dealer and Financier, the Dealer failed to integrate into a written sales contract all material statements, representations or promises, oral or written, made prior to obtaining the Plaintiffs signature on the written contract with the Dealer, in violation of O.A.C. 109:4-3-16(B)(22). 63. As a result of the above, inter alia, the Dealer violated the Motor Vehicle Sales Rule, before, during or after a consumer transaction between the Plaintiffs and one or more of the defendants. FIFTH CLAIM: TRUTH IN LENDING ACT 64. The allegations of all other paragraphs and claims in this pleading are incorporated as if fully rewritten herein. 65. This claim is for violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act and/or the Consumer Leasing Act and the Consumer Act by the Financier. 66. During the course of the instant consumer sales transaction, and credit transaction, the Financier did violate the federal Truth in Lending Act and/or Regulation Z in one or more of the following manners, inter alia: a. It did fail to make required disclosures accurately, clearly, conspicuously, and in a meaningful sequence; b: It did fail to make the mandated disclosures before the transaction was consummated. 67. As a result of the above facts, inter alia, the Financier violated the federal Truth in Lending Act and/or Regulation Z, all to the legal injury of the Plaintiffs. SIXTH CLAIM: FRAUD & DECEIT 68. The allegations of all other paragraphs and claims in this pleading are incorporated as if fully rewritten herein.
24

Ohio Administrative Code 109:4-3-16(B).

69. This claim is for fraud and deceit committed by the Manufacturer and the Dealer and the Financier. 70. During the time the Dealers authorized agents were each dealing with the Plaintiffs, they were each representing the Dealer and the Financier simultaneously at various stages of the transaction between the parties, with the knowledge and consent and authorization of both the Dealer and the Financier, and each such person was therefore acting in a dual agency status. 71. Before, on, and/or after Plaintiffs acquired an interest in the subject vehicle, the Manufacturer became aware of the legal interest of the Plaintiffs in the vehicle. 72. Prior to that time, the Manufacturer and/or the Dealer knew or should have known that the subject vehicle could not be resold in Ohio the way it ultimately did it, but they did it anyway. 73. Prior to that time, the Manufacturer and/or the Dealer each knew or should have known that the procedures, practices and policies the Manufacturer and/or the Dealer put in place for the resale of bought back Lemon vehicles would result in failure to comply with the Ohio Lemon Law, but they did it anyway. 74. When it did so, the Manufacturer knew or should have known that concealing the extent of the cause of the Lemon Law buyback of the vehicle would cause the purchasing dealership to be misled about the existence and seriousness of any defects that may have existed prior to that dealers purchase of the vehicle, which the Manufacturer knew or should have known would likely cause that dealership to mislead any subsequent purchaser of the vehicle about the existence and seriousness of those defects, and which the Manufacturer knew or should have known would likely cause each subsequent purchaser of the vehicle to be misled about the extent of, the existence of, and the seriousness of prior defects, but it did it anyway. 75. The Dealer knew or should have known that the Manufacturer was concealing the full extent of the cause of the Lemon law buyback of the vehicle and that the manufacturers acts and omissions would cause the Dealer to be misled about the existence and extent of the vehicles prior defects, which would cause the sales employees of the Dealer to be misled about the same, which would likely cause all subsequent purchasers of the vehicle to be misled about the vehicles prior defects, but the manufacturer did it anyway. 76. The knowledge of the Dealer is imputed by law to the Financier, as its principal, when the Dealer was acting on behalf of the Financier; the knowledge of the Dealer is imputed by law to the Manufacturer, as its principal, when the Dealer was acting on behalf of the Manufacturer. 77. All of those concealed facts were material to the purchase of the vehicle by the Plaintiffs in this case. 78. The Manufacturer and the Dealer and/or the Financier each had a duty to timely disclose to Plaintiffs the facts and information which it concealed. 79. The truth about the vehicles condition and its title and the vehicles prior history was not readily observable or discoverable by Plaintiffs. 80. Before and during its transaction with the Plaintiffs, defendant Manufacturer made the actual or implied representations and/or concealments discussed in detail above, of one or more matters of fact relating to the 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow 34N which was the subject of the transaction between the parties and the goods and services it would provide Plaintiffs, those representations were material to the transaction and were made falsely and with express or implied knowledge by said defendant of said falsity, or with such utter disregard and recklessness as to the truth or falsity that knowledge may be inferred, and with the intent of

10

misleading Plaintiffs into reliance, which Plaintiffs did so do and which Plaintiffs had a right to so rely. 81. Before and during its transaction with the Plaintiffs, defendant Dealer, acting for itself and for the Financier, made the actual or implied representations and/or concealments discussed in detail above, of one or more matters of fact relating to the 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow which was the subject of the transaction between the parties and the goods and services it would provide Plaintiffs, those representations were material to the transaction and were made falsely and with express or implied knowledge by said defendant of said falsity, or with such utter disregard and recklessness as to the truth or falsity that knowledge may be inferred, and with the intent of misleading Plaintiffs into reliance, which Plaintiffs did so do and which Plaintiffs had a right to so rely. 82. The acts and omissions of each agent, who acted for its principal in the course of the transaction with the Plaintiffs, was subsequently ratified by each principal who is a defendant in this case. 83. As a direct and proximate result of the above, Plaintiffs were injured and suffered economic damages. WHEREFORE, judgment is demanded against defendants, jointly and severally, as applicable according with the allegations above, hereinafter, as deemed proper and lawful by the Court, alternatively as follows: PRAYER FOR RELIEF 1. On the first claim, for breach of warranty and violation of the Ohio Lemon Law and the Consumer Act, statutory and other damages, remedies, and relief as deemed proper and lawful by the Court, for each and every violation that may be proven at trial, including an Order declaring that Plaintiffs have the right to elect between a vehicle repurchase (i.e., a buyback) and declaring Plaintiffs entitled to a judgment against defendant in an amount of more than $25,000, or a vehicle replacement; 2. On the second claim, for violation of the Federal Warranty Act and the Consumer Act and Breach of Warranty, actual damages of an amount more than $25,000, statutory and other damages, remedies, and relief as deemed proper and lawful by the Court, for each and every violation that may be proven at trial; 3. On the third claim, for violation of the Consumer Act, actual damages of an amount more than $25,000 or $200.00 statutory damages or three times such actual damages, whichever is greater, and other damages, remedies, and relief as deemed proper and lawful by the Court, for each and every violation that may be proven at trial; 4. On the fourth claim, for violation of the Motor Vehicle Sales Rule and the Consumer Act, $200.00 statutory damages or three times such actual damages whichever is greater, and other damages, remedies, and relief deemed proper and lawful by the Court, for each and every violation that may be proven at trial; 5. On the fifth claim, for violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z, statutory and other damages, remedies, and relief as deemed proper and lawful by the Court for each and every violation that may be proven at trial; 6. On the sixth claim, for fraud and deceit, actual damages of more than $25,000 and punitive damages of more than $25,000;

11

ALTERNATIVE PRAYER FOR RELIEF Or, at the election of the Plaintiffs and in the alternative to the damages set forth in the prayer above, 1. On all claims, cancellation and/or rescission of the contract plus statutory remedies and relief as deemed proper, equitable and lawful by the Court, for each and every violation which may be proven at trial; Plus on each and every claim, expenses of suit and litigation, interest from the date the contract was consummated, and an Order finding Plaintiffs to have rescinded the transaction and/or to have revoked acceptance, reasonable attorney fees; and an Order requiring the Financier to assert its claim or interest in the vehicle which is the subject of this suit and any cross claims or counterclaims against any party hereto or be forever barred therefrom, and for judgment against the Financier in an amount to be determined as legal and proper by the Court together with any and all other legal and equitable relief deemed necessary and just, plus all costs, and any and all other legal and equitable relief deemed necessary and just. Plaintiffs demand trial by Jury on all claims and all issues. ______________________ [Attorney for Plaintiffs]

Oh.Sp.Ct. 0015609

12

2.1.2 Discovery Directed to the Dealer

IN LICKING COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, OHIO [CONSUMER 1], et al., Plaintiffs, v. FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. Judge FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, ADMISSIONS, AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS TO RCD SALES COMPANY LTD. Plaintiffs submit the following Combined Discovery Request to Defendant RCD Sales Company LTD to be answered in accord with the Rules of Civil Procedure and within 28 days after service hereof. Supplementation of any response hereto is requested to be made in a timely manner but no less than thirty days prior to the trial hereof, pursuant to C. Rule 26(E). DEFINITIONS Manufacturer means Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., its agents, representatives, officers, employees, attorneys or any other person purporting to act, or acting on its behalf. Dealer or dealership means RCD Sales Company LTD, its agents, representatives, officers, employees, attorneys or any other person purporting to act or acting on its behalf. Plaintiffs means [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2], and/or plaintiffs agents, representatives, officers, employees, attorneys, or any other person purporting to act, or acting for plaintiffs or on plaintiffs behalf. Sold, sale, and purchase are phrases which, for the purpose of the below listed inquiries mean the transfer of title to the recreational vehicle involved in this lawsuit, and includes the phrase lease for the limited purpose of this lawsuit. Subject vehicle means the recreational vehicle which is the subject of this lawsuit, as further identified in the Complaint filed herein, being a 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow. Reacquired motor vehicle means a recreational vehicle that has been repurchased or reacquired by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. because of warranty nonconformities or claims of warranty nonconformities. All other phrases and words are defined as in their plain English meaning. INTERROGATORIES

13

1. What is the name, business address, and job position with you of every person who is providing the answers to these questions? 2. Where and when (i.e., the place and date of sale) and by who (meaning the dealers complete and full name) was the recreational vehicle which is the subject matter of this action sold to plaintiffs? 3. Before the date on which the subject recreational vehicle was delivered to plaintiffs, was the recreational vehicle ever used for any purpose other than sale, i.e., as a demonstrator, for personal use, etc., and, if so, describe the use so made of the recreational vehicle? 4. What is the total number of times you serviced, repaired, or otherwise worked on the 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow recreational vehicle involved in this case, or authorized others to do such for you? 5. With regard to question 4 and your answer above, what was the date of each such service, repair, or other work, the nature of each such service, repair or other work performed, and the name of all parts replaced upon such service, repair or other work? 6. With regard to question 4 and your answer above, was any service, repair or other work billed or otherwise invoiced to any person other than [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] for payment or reimbursement to you (i.e., such as for warranty or service contract work, to Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. of the recreational vehicle), and, if so, what is the name of such other person? 7. Subsequent to the time you received the 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow involved in this case, and prior to the time when said recreational vehicle was delivered to plaintiffs, what additional equipment or options were installed upon said recreational vehicle by you or at your direction or request, if any? 8. Was the recreational vehicle damaged prior to you receiving it, and, if so, what area of the recreational vehicle was damaged, when did you notice same, who first noticed it, and was it repaired? 9. Was the recreational vehicle damaged while it was in your possession, and, if so, what area of the recreational vehicle was damaged, when did you notice same, who first noticed it, and was it repaired? 10. What is the name, last known residential address, and job position with you (i.e., salesperson, business manager, F&I person, sales manager, etc.) of all persons who have had any contact or communication with plaintiffs, the date of each such contact and the purpose or subject matter of each such contact?

14

11. What is the name, business address, and job position with you, if any, of all nonexpert person(s) who you expect, contemplate, or intend to have testify as witnesses at the trial or any hearing hereof? 12. What is the name, business address and employer of each person whom you intend to call as an expert witness at the trial or any hearing hereof? 13. What is the subject matter upon which each person, identified in your answer to question 12 above, is expected to testify? 14. What opinions are held by each person, identified in your answer to question 12 above, which are relevant to the subject matter upon which you identified in your answer to question 13 above? 15. At the time of sale to plaintiffs, what did the dealership employees say to them about the prior use of the recreational vehicle? 16. At the time of sale to plaintiffs, did the dealership employees inform plaintiffs that the recreational vehicle had previously been repurchased by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., if so, what was said and by whom (name, address and phone number)? 17. On what date did you disclose to plaintiffs that the subject recreational vehicle had been reacquired by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. from the original owner because of warranty nonconformities or claims of warranty nonconformities? 18. What instructions or procedures were communicated or given to RCD Sales Company LTD regarding the process or procedure to follow in the retail resale of this recreational vehicle? 19. When and how was RCD Sales Company LTD first made aware that the recreational vehicle involved in this case had been reacquired from its original owner by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. and what was said and by who? 20. What reason did Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. give you for its repurchase of the recreational vehicle from the original owner? 21. When did RCD Sales Company LTD receive any instructions or procedures from Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. to be followed in the retail resale of the recreational vehicle involved in this case and what were the instructions or procedures that were communicated to RCD Sales Company LTD? 22. How many reacquired recreational vehicles has RCD Sales Company LTD sold at retail prior to the one involved in this case, if RCD Sales Company LTD knows?

15

23. Did Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. ever instruct or advise RCD Sales Company LTD of the process or procedures to put in place for the resale of reacquired recreational vehicles by RCD Sales Company LTD? 24. When did RCD Sales Company LTD agree to purchase the subject recreational vehicle from Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. and how much did RCD Sales Company LTD agree to pay for it? 25. What is every document that Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. provided to RCD Sales Company LTD when RCD Sales Company LTD purchased the recreational vehicle from Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. and on what date was each such document delivered or provided to RCD Sales Company LTD? 26. On what date and at what time did RCD Sales Company LTD obtain the signature of any plaintiffs on the first document involved in the purchase of the subject recreational vehicle and what was the name of that document? 27. On what date and at what time did RCD Sales Company LTD obtain the signature of any plaintiffs on the financing agreement involved with the sale of the subject recreational vehicle? 28. On what date and at what time and in what manner (i.e., by phone, in person, etc.) did RCD Sales Company LTD first advise plaintiffs that the subject recreational vehicle had been reacquired by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. from its original owner because of warranty nonconformities or claims of warranty nonconformities and what was the name of RCD Sales Company LTD employee who made such disclosure? 29. On what date and at what time did RCD Sales Company LTD first receive from Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. the title to the subject recreational vehicle and what was the manner of deliver of it? 30. Has RCD Sales Company LTD ever sold at retail a reacquired recreational vehicle before? 31. If the answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in the affirmative, then what was the make and model and year of the recreational vehicle involved and who was the buyer, where did they reside, what was the name of each Dealer employee who was involved in that transaction, and do you still have records of that transaction? 32. What was the date and time when RCD Sales Company LTD first communicated to Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. any interest it had in acquiring the subject recreational vehicle from Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., and the name of the dealership employee and the name of Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. employee who communicated with each other on that first instance? 33. When RCD Sales Company LTD first communicated an interest in acquiring the recreational vehicle from Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., what did Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. say?

16

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS The dealer is requested to produce a complete and accurate photocopy of such of the following documents as may be in the dealers possession or otherwise accessible to the dealer in the ordinary course of its business. 1. If RCD Sales Company LTD has access to it or can obtain same, a computer printout or similar summary of the recreational vehicle repair history from the defendant dealers records, or similar data base or information system or file, including any maintained by dealer or accessible to dealer, containing material related to the subject recreational vehicle including, but not limited to, the Vehicle Warranty History. 2. All copies, front and back sides, of all copies of all repair orders or other similar such documents or any related documents, including the shop copy, involved with the subject recreational vehicle. 3. If RCD Sales Company LTD has access to it or can obtain same, the Product Service Publications Index or similar such document that is an index of all Technical or Dealer Service bulletins issued by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. on the subject recreational vehicle. 4. If RCD Sales Company LTD is under any contractual relationship with Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. of the 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow then produce such contract or similar such document containing your agreement with Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. 5. Any non-privileged correspondence with any other party to the litigation, including plaintiffs, regarding the subject recreational vehicle. 6. Any correspondence with any private or third party dispute resolution system regarding the subject recreational vehicle. 7. Any appraisal records on any trade-in recreational vehicle relevant to the lawsuit. 8. The vehicle inventory record (i.e., the washout sheet) for the subject recreational vehicle and any trade-in recreational vehicle. 9. The contract of sale relevant to the subject recreational vehicle and the plaintiffs. 10. The deal worksheet relevant to the subject recreational vehicle and the plaintiffs. 11. A copy of every warranty or extended warranty or service contract RCD Sales Company LTD entered into or otherwise made on the subject recreational vehicle. 12. Any records of inspection regarding the subject recreational vehicle other than those which are not discoverable under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.

17

13. All documents, exhibits, evidence, or any thing which RCD Sales Company LTD intends to rely upon or otherwise introduce into evidence at any arbitration hearing, trial, or other hearing in this case, whether or not RCD Sales Company LTD intends to or plans or anticipates it may show such matter to the Court or Judge or jury or any witness, and which is not otherwise specifically requested to be produced herein. 14. If RCD Sales Company LTD has access to it or can obtain same, then produce Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.s invoice or similar such document itemizing the original factory installed equipment on the subject recreational vehicle. 15. If RCD Sales Company LTD has access to it or can obtain same, then produce the Service Policies and Procedures Manual, or similar such document, for the 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow involved in this case, effective when the recreational vehicle was sold to plaintiffs? 16. If RCD Sales Company LTD has access to it or can obtain same, then produce all Technical Service Bulletins, Dealer Service Bulletins, Service Alert documents, Management Service Bulletins, Dealer Technical Service Bulletins, Product Campaign Service Bulletins or similar such documents, for the 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow involved in this case, or similar such documents. 17. All pre-delivery inspection procedure forms, or pre-retail sale inspection reports, or similar such documents, for the1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow involved in this case. 18. The Carrier Delivery Receipt, or similar such documents for the 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow involved in this case, or similar such writings dealing with acknowledgment by you of delivery of the subject recreational vehicle to you from the carrier which transported the subject recreational vehicle or any other person who delivered possession of the subject recreational vehicle to RCD Sales Company LTD. 19. All documents related in any way to the plaintiffs or the specific 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow involved in this case. 20. All non-privileged documents, writings, or other things or matters which bear the name of the plaintiffs and/or the VIN number of the recreational vehicle which is the subject of this case. 21. All documents related in any manner to any options or other equipment installed upon the subject recreational vehicle by RCD Sales Company LTD or at RCD Sales Company LTD direction or instruction or request. 22. RCD Sales Company LTD motor vehicle dealer license(s). 23. The motor vehicle salesperson license of all persons who dealt with plaintiffs.

18

24. One original, of each different sales brochure, sales literature, sales pictures, video tape, or any other promotional literature produced for the model line, make and year of which the subject recreational vehicle is a member. 25. All documents specifically relating to the subject recreational vehicle which RCD Sales Company LTD received from, or sent to, Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. at any time. 26. That portion of any policy and procedure manuals, customer relations manuals, and field operations manuals, or similar such documents, regardless of title or name, which governed the conduct of RCD Sales Company LTD and/or Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. in the retail or wholesale sale of the recreational vehicle involved in this case. 27. All documents, exhibits, evidence, or any thing which RCD Sales Company LTD intends to rely upon or otherwise introduce into evidence at any arbitration hearing, trial, or other hearing in this case, whether or not RCD Sales Company LTD intends to or plans or anticipates it may show such matter to the Court or Judge or jury or any witness, and which is not otherwise specifically requested to be produced herein. ADMISSIONS You are requested to admit that each of the following statements is true and accurate: 1. RCD Sales Company LTD has no evidence to dispute that plaintiffs acquired an interest in the subject recreational vehicle for their personal, family or household use. 2. RCD Sales Company LTD was a supplier within the meaning of R.C. 1345.01(C) in dealing with plaintiffs. 3. RCD Sales Company LTD was a merchant in dealing with plaintiffs. 4. RCD Sales Company LTD did engage in a consumer transaction with plaintiffs within the meaning of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act with relation to the recreational vehicle involved in this case. 5. At the time RCD Sales Company LTD obtained the signature of plaintiffs on the Buyers Order for the purchase of the subject recreational vehicle, RCD Sales Company LTD did not own the subject recreational vehicle. 6. RCD Sales Company LTD did distribute advertisements in the print and electronic media (i.e., television, radio and film) for the purpose of effecting or soliciting a consumer transaction. 7. After the delivery of the subject recreational vehicle to [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2], RCD Sales Company LTD did become aware that the recreational vehicle did not conform to the warranty on it byRCD Sales Company LTD.

19

8. [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] did provide RCD Sales Company LTD with a reasonable opportunity to repair the recreational vehicle. 9. RCD Sales Company LTD was unable to correct all malfunctions which [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] reported to exist in the subject recreational vehicle. 10. [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] did notify RCD Sales Company LTD of the malfunctions in the subject recreational vehicle. 11. Prior to filing suit, [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] did notify RCD Sales Company LTD that [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] wanted RCD Sales Company LTD to take the recreational vehicle back and cancel the entire deal.

______________________________ [Attorney for Plaintiffs]

20

2.1.3 Discovery Directed to the Manufacturer

IN LICKING COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, OHIO [CONSUMER 1], et al., Plaintiffs, v. FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. Judge FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, ADMISSIONS, AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS TO DEFENDANT FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC. Plaintiffs submit the following Combined Discovery Request to Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. to be answered in accord with the Rules of Civil Procedure and within 28 days after service hereof. Supplementation of any response hereto is requested to be made in a timely manner but no less than thirty days prior to the trial hereof, pursuant to C. Rule 26(E). DEFINITIONS Manufacturer means Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., its agents, representatives, officers, employees, attorneys or any other person purporting to act, or acting on its behalf. Dealer or dealership means RCD Sales Company LTD, its agents, representatives, officers, employees, attorneys or any other person purporting to act or acting on its behalf. Plaintiffs means [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2], and/or plaintiffs agents, representatives, officers, employees, attorneys, or any other person purporting to act, or acting for plaintiffs or on plaintiffs behalf. Sold, sale, and purchase are phrases which, for the purpose of the below listed inquiries mean the transfer of title to the vehicle involved in this lawsuit, and includes the phrase lease for the limited purpose of this lawsuit. Subject vehicle means the recreation vehicle which is the subject of this lawsuit, as further identified in the Complaint filed herein, being a 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow Class A. All other phrases and words are defined as in their plain English meaning. INTERROGATORIES 1. What is the name of every person employed by the manufacturer who communicated with the plaintiffs about the vehicle?

21

2. What is the name and business address of every person who Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. believes or knows to have inspected or repaired the subject vehicle at any time, and the date and purpose of the inspection or repair? 3. What is the name, business address, and job position with you, if any, of each Manufacturer representative responsible for supervision of the resale of reacquired vehicles in the state of Texas and Ohio from January 1, 2002 to the present date? 4. What is the name of every dealership or other person who has ever done any warrantycovered work, repair or service on the vehicle? 5. If there is any other person who Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. knows has knowledge of any information that is relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit, please list the names, home address and home telephone number of those persons. 6. What is the name, business address and job position with you of the Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. employee who decided to resell the subject vehicle after it was reacquired? 7. What is the name, business address, and job position with you, if any, of all person(s) who you know or believe have any personal knowledge of any facts relevant to this case? 8. What is the name, business address and employer of each person whom you intend to call as an expert witness at the trial or any hearing hereof? 9. What is the subject matter upon which each person, identified in your answer to question 8 above, is expected to testify? 10. What opinions are held by each person, identified in your answer to question 8 above, which are relevant to the subject matter upon which you identified in your answer to question 9 above? 11. Do you know how many times did a manufacturer franchised dealer perform warranty repairs upon the subject vehicle (yes or no) and, if so, how many? 12. Do you know how many different parts were replaced on the subject vehicle prior to the filing of this lawsuit (yes or no) and, if so, how many? 13. Do you know what is the total number of days the vehicle was out of service prior to the filing of this lawsuit (yes or no) and, if so, how many? 14. When and why did Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. reacquire the vehicle? 15. When and why did Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. agree to sell the vehicle to the dealer?

22

16. When did Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. physically obtain the motor vehicle title and from who did they obtain it, and what steps did it take with the vehicle title to assure it was retitled as required by Ohio law? 17. What sale instructions were given to RCD Sales Company LTD concerning any possible retail sale of the subject vehicle by RCD Sales Company LTD, by who, and when were such instructions given or communicated? 18. When were procedures established by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. to assure that its resale of reacquired motor vehicles would occur in compliance with the requirements of the Ohio Law and by who? 19. What are the procedures used by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. to assure that its resale of reacquired motor vehicles would occur in compliance with the requirements of the Ohio Law (i.e., explain the steps in the procedure which Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. uses)? 20. What forms are used by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. in the course of processing a reacquired motor vehicle through Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.s resale process (i.e., the name of each form used at any step in the process), and who gets copies of each form after it is completed? 21. What is the name, address, and job position with you, of the person(s) who is in charge of assuring compliance with Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.s adopted resale process for reacquired motor vehicles? 22. Was each step of Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.s adopted procedure followed for the resale of the reacquired motor vehicle involved in this case and, if not, what step(s) were not followed and who was in charge of assuring compliance with each step that was not followed? 23. What was the price that RCD Sales Company LTD paid Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. for ownership of the subject motor vehicle and when was it received by the Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.? 24. How many motor vehicles did Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. reacquire from owners in Texas during 2002 (or during the last time period for which such statistics were compiled and, in that event, identify the time period) because of warranty nonconformities or claims of warranty nonconformities? 25. How many motor vehicles did Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. reacquire from owners in Ohio during 2002 (or during the last time period for which such statistics were compiled and, in that event, identify the time period) because of warranty nonconformities or claims of warranty nonconformities? 26. How much did Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. pay to the owner of the subject motor vehicle to reacquire it?

23

27. How much, in total, did Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. pay to owners in Texas of motor vehicles which it reacquired in 2002 (or during the last time period for which such statistics were compiled and, in that event, identify the time period) because of warranty nonconformities or claims of warranty nonconformities? 28. How much, in total, did Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. pay to owners in Ohio of motor vehicles which it reacquired in 2002 (or during the last time period for which such statistics were compiled and, in that event, identify the time period) because of warranty nonconformities or claims of warranty nonconformities? 29. How much, in total, did Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. receive from the resale of motor vehicles which it had reacquired in Texas in 2002 (or during the last time period for which such statistics were compiled and, in that event, identify the time period) because of warranty nonconformities or claims of warranty nonconformities? 30. How much, in total, did Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. receive from the resale of motor vehicles which it had reacquired in Ohio in 2002 (or during the last time period for which such statistics were compiled and, in that event, identify the time period) because of warranty nonconformities or claims of warranty nonconformities? PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Manufacturer is requested to produce a complete and accurate photocopy of such of the following documents as may be in the manufacturers possession or otherwise accessible to manufacturer in the ordinary course of its business. 1. Produce all documents relating to the subject 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow Class A motor vehicle, including, but not limited to, inspection reports, repair and service records, repurchase documents, written correspondence, sale documents or billing invoice(s), and/or any notes of any communications between Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. and RCD Sales Company LTD which involve the subject motor vehicle. 2. Please produce copies of all repair orders and other documents Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. received from any Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. dealer for any repairs made to the vehicle, including all copies of same. 3. Please produce copies of any letters or communications sent or made to anyone concerning any problems with the vehicle at any time. 4. All procedure manuals, customer relations manuals, and field operations manuals, or similar such documents, regardless of title or name, which governed the conduct of Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. and RCD Sales Company LTD, in the repurchase and resale of the subject vehicle. 5. The check or receipt or other evidence of payment by RCD Sales Company LTD to Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. for the ownership of the subject motor vehicle.

24

6. Please produce copies of any notes relating to any telephone conversations concerning any problems with the vehicle. 7. Please produce copies of all the documents Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. received from any dealer about the vehicle. 8. Please produce a copy of any written warranty or service agreement Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. made which was ever applicable to the vehicle. 9. Please produce copies of all documents that evidence, reflect or relate to any defense you claim exists in this lawsuit. 10. Please produce copies of any documents that reflect any lack of routine maintenance on the vehicle. 11. The procedures established by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. for the reacquisition of a motor vehicle from a consumer because of warranty nonconformities or complaints of warranty nonconformities. 12. The procedures established by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. for the resale of a reacquired motor vehicle. 13. The procedures communicated to its authorized dealerships for the retail resale of a reacquired motor vehicle. 14. All of the procedures, if different from the above requests, which were followed by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., or communicated to RCD Sales Company LTD, in the reacquisition and resale process involved with the motor vehicle in this case. 15. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.s department or division organizational chart for the department or division responsible for monitoring the reacquisition of motor vehicles by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. because of warranty nonconformities or claims of warranty nonconformities, showing the names and job positions of all persons in the department or division. 16. One sample of each form used by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. or its employees in each step of the procedure for the reacquisition of motor vehicles because of warranty nonconformities or claims of warranty nonconformities, that was in place in 2002. 17. A computer printout or similar summary of the subject vehicles warranty and repair history, warranty claims and payments or denials, and other computerized records or notes, from the manufacturers records, or similar data base or information system or file containing material related to the subject vehicle or the plaintiffs.

25

18. All recall and service campaign notices relating to any complaints plaintiffs made about the vehicle which are reflected on any Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. dealers repair orders. 19. All Technical or Dealer Service bulletins issued by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. on the subject vehicle relating to each condition or defect which was repaired or serviced according to Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.s repair records or similar Vehicle Warranty History. 20. All documents, exhibits, evidence, or any thing which is relevant to this case or the vehicle or the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs complaints. 21. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.s dealer invoice or similar such document itemizing the original factory installed equipment on the subject motor vehicle. 22. If Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. is claiming that the plaintiffs should have submitted this warranty dispute to some form of dispute resolution mechanism, then produce all documents which constitute any part, or whole, of any agreement or memorandum of understanding which was in force or in existence and applicable between Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. and any entity to which it submits itself for the purpose of arbitrating or resolving a customer disputes relating to warranty coverage of defects and/or malfunctions in its motor vehicles. 23. Any pre-litigation inspections, field service reports, universal data reports and technical inspections, and any evaluation as to whether the vehicle meets state or federal lemon laws. ADMISSIONS The defendant Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. is requested to admit that each of the following statements is true and accurate: 1. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. has no evidence to dispute that [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] acquired an interest in the subject motor vehicle for primarily personal, family and household reasons. 2. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. was a supplier within the meaning of Revised Code 1345.01(C), at all times relevant to this case. 3. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. did engage in a consumer transaction with [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] within the meaning of Revised Code 1345.01(A) and concerning the subject motor vehicle. 4. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. has no evidence to dispute that [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] acquired an interest in the subject motor vehicle in reliance on the written warranty from Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. 5. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. did repurchase the subject vehicle from a previous owner of the subject motor vehicle because of nonconformities with the vehicle.

26

6. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. did sell the vehicle to RCD Sales Company LTD. 7. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. did inform RCD Sales Company LTD that the vehicle was a repurchased vehicle. 8. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. did not instruct RCD Sales Company LTD of any specific procedure for retail sale of a repurchased vehicles in Ohio. 9. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. does not have established procedures to assure that the retail resale of reacquired motor vehicles occurs in compliance with the requirements of local state laws. 10. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. does have specific forms for retail dealerships to use when selling a reacquired motor vehicle. 11. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. has no reason to dispute that the subject motor vehicle was regularly serviced and in all other respects was driven and maintained with proper and reasonable care by plaintiffs. 12. Plaintiffs did provide one or more Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. authorized dealers with an opportunity to repair the subject motor vehicle. 13. Plaintiffs did notify one or more Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. authorized dealers of the malfunctions plaintiffs stated to exist in the subject motor vehicle prior to filing this lawsuit. 14. Prior to filing suit, plaintiffs did notify Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. or one of its dealers that plaintiffs wanted Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. to take the vehicle back and cancel the entire deal. 15. Every Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. dealer who performed any work or service on the vehicle was an authorized Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. dealer for warranty repair work purposes. 16. The vehicle involved in this case was either manufactured or distributed by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. 17. A copy of the Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. Limited Warranty which was applicable to the subject motor vehicle is in the possession of Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.

_____________________________ [Attorney for Plaintiffs]

27

2.1.4 Discovery Directed to Bank

IN LICKING COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, OHIO [CONSUMER 1], et al., Plaintiffs, v. FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. Judge FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, ADMISSIONS, AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS TO FIRSTMERIT BANK, N.A. Plaintiffs submit the following Combined Discovery Request to Defendant FirstMerit Bank, N.A. to be answered in accord with the Rules of Civil Procedure and within 28 days after service hereof. Supplementation of any response hereto is requested to be made in a timely manner but no less than thirty days prior to the trial hereof, pursuant to C. Rule 26(E). DEFINITIONS Manufacturer means Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., its agents, representatives, officers, employees, attorneys or any other person purporting to act, or acting on its behalf. Dealer or dealership means RCD Sales Company, LTD, its agents, representatives, officers, employees, attorneys or any other person purporting to act or acting on its behalf. Financier means FirstMerit Bank, N.A., its agents, representatives, officers, employees, attorneys or any other person purporting to act, or acting on its behalf. Plaintiffs means [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] or either of them, their agents, representatives, officers, employees, attorneys, or any other person purporting to act, or acting for plaintiffs or on their behalf. Sold, sale, and purchase are phrases which, for the purpose of the below listed inquiries mean the transfer of title to the motor home involved in this lawsuit. Subject motor home means the motor home which is the subject of this lawsuit, as further identified in the Complaint filed herein. All other phrases and words are defined as in their plain English meaning. INTERROGATORIES

28

1. What is the name, business address, and job position with you of every person who is providing the answers to these questions? 2. Where and when (i.e., the place, date and time) and by who (the name, last known residential address, and job position with you) was the approval made of the financing of the sale of the 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow involved in this case? 3. Where and when (i.e., the place, date and time) and how (i.e., telephone, wire, personal application, fax, etc.) were you first contacted concerning the financing of the particular motor home which is the subject matter of this action, and by who (the name, last known residential address and the job position of the person who contacted you)? 4. Where and when (i.e., the place, date and time) and by who (the name, last known residential address, and job position with you) were you told that the subject motor home was previously reacquired by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.? 5. How many Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. reacquired motor homes have you financed in the past two years? 6. Did RCD Sales Company, LTD finalize the financing of the 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow involved in this case, with the plaintiffs, for you? 7. What is the name, business address, and job position with you of every person who had any contact or communication with the [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2], and the date, approximate time, substance and manner (i.e., telephone, in person, by letter, etc.) of each such contact or communication? 8. What is the name, business address, and job position with you, if any, of all nonexpert person(s) who you expect, contemplate, or intend to have testify as witnesses at the trial or any hearing hereof? 9. What is the name, business address and employer of each person whom you intend to call as an expert witness at the trial or any hearing hereof? 10. What is the subject matter upon which each person, identified in your answer to question 9 above, is expected to testify? 11. What opinions are held by each person, identified in your answer to question 9 above, which are relevant to the subject matter upon which you identified in your answer to question 10 above? 12. What was the amount of consideration which you gave or paid for the assignment or other transfer of the finance agreement for the subject motor home involved in this case, when you acquired it?

29

13. When the contract was being consummated between RCD Sales Company, LTD and [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2], had you authorized the employees of RCD Sales Company, LTD to say anything on your behalf or about the financing of the motor home, and if so, what? 14. Do you have any record or notes or similar such documents or writings, which contain information related to the receipt by you of the first contact from RCD Sales Company, LTD regarding [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] and the desire by RCD Sales Company, LTD or plaintiffs to arrange for the financing of the motor home with your participation or assistance? 15. If your answer to the foregoing question is in the affirmative, what is the name, last known residential address, and job position with you of the person who has control and/or possession of the documents referred to in question 14? 16. In regard to the 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow involved in this case, what is the number of times you, or anyone acting on your request, serviced, repaired, inspected or otherwise worked on the motor home, if any? PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS The financier is requested to produce a complete and accurate photocopy of such of the following documents as may be in the financiers possession or otherwise accessible to the financier in the ordinary course of its business. 1. Any documents which bear the signature of the plaintiffs and relate to the subject motor home. 2. A computer printout or other summary showing the loan history over (a) the life of the loan if all payments are timely made in the future and showing all payments previously made in the past and the application of each payment toward principal or interest, etc., and (b) the balance remaining after each monthly payment (assuming it is timely made) for the life of the loan. 3. The interest rate dealer reserve schedule, or similar guideline, applicable between the financier and the retail seller of the subject motor home on July 27, 2002. 4. A computer printout or similar summary of the loan or contact history from the financiers records, or similar data base or information system or file containing material related to the subject motor home loan including, but not limited to, any telephone or other contacts between the financier and [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] regarding the subject motor homes loan. 5. Any non-privileged correspondence with any other party to the litigation, including plaintiffs, regarding the subject motor home. 6. Any correspondence with any private or third party dispute resolution system regarding the subject motor home.

30

7. Any appraisal records on any trade-in motor home relevant to the lawsuit. 8. The finance contract, aka retail instalment sales contract, or similar such loan agreement relevant to the subject motor home and the plaintiffs and the financier. 9. Any records of inspection regarding the subject motor home other than those which are not discoverable under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. Plaintiffs credit application relevant to the subject motor home and the plaintiffs. 11. All documents, exhibits, evidence, or any thing which the financier intends to rely upon or otherwise introduce into evidence at any arbitration hearing, trial, or other hearing in this case, whether or not the financier intends to or plans or anticipates it may show such matter to the Court or Judge or jury or any witness, and which is not otherwise specifically requested to be produced herein. 12. The Financing Policies and Procedures Manual, or similar such instructional or guiding document, applicable on July 27, 2002 between you and RCD Sales Company, LTD. 13. The Dealer Financing Agreement, or similar such document dealing with the relationship between RCD Sales Company, LTD and you and applicable on July 27, 2002. 14. All non-privileged documents or matters which bear the Vehicle Identification Number of the subject motor home. 15. All documents related to or in explanation of the basis upon which you or RCD Sales Company, LTD determined the terms of financing or leasing which would be offered to or consummated with plaintiffs. 16. Your register of receipt of credit applications, credit inquiries, or any similar such log, ledger or document which notes the precise time and date and manner (i.e., telephone, fax, etc.) that the credit application, extension of credit and instalment loan in this case was first received by you. ADMISSIONS You are requested to admit that each of the following statements is true and accurate: 1. FirstMerit Bank, N.A. did finance the 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow sold to [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] involved in this case. 2. The obligation of [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2], if any exists, to make any payments on the finance agreement with FirstMerit Bank, N.A. is subject to all claims or defenses which plaintiffs may have against RCD Sales Company, LTD arising out of the sale of the subject motor home in this case.

31

3. FirstMerit Bank, N.A. does not dispute that [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] acquired an interest in the subject motor home or primarily personal, household or family reasons. 4. FirstMerit Bank, N.A. was a creditor within the meaning of the Truth in Lending Act on July 27, 2002 in its dealings with [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] 5. At the time FirstMerit Bank, N.A. approved the financing of the subject motor home, it knew that [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] purchased an interest in the 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow involved in this case in reliance on the existence of a warranty from Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.. 6. After the sale and delivery of the subject motor home to [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2], FirstMerit Bank, N.A. did become aware that the motor home did not conform to the warranty given by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. on the subject motor home. 7. At the time FirstMerit Bank, N.A. knew that the 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow had been previously reacquired by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.. 8. FirstMerit Bank, N.A. did have notice of the malfunctions in the subject motor home before this lawsuit was filed. 9. Prior to the filing of this suit, FirstMerit Bank, N.A. did have notice that [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] wanted to cancel the entire transaction involving the 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow involved in this case. 10. RCD Sales Company, LTD represented FirstMerit Bank, N.A. in the dealings with [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] that directly involved the consummation of the finance contract related to the 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow involved in this case. 11. FirstMerit Bank, N.A. provided RCD Sales Company, LTD with blank personal loan agreement and/or retail instalment sales contract and/or motor home lease agreement forms from FirstMerit Bank, N.A. and/or one or more of the subsidiaries of FirstMerit Bank, N.A. and which bore the name of FirstMerit Bank, N.A. on them, during or prior to the calendar year in which [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] acquired an interest in the 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow involved in this case. 12. [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] does not have to make any more payments on the finance contract with FirstMerit Bank, N.A.. 13. FirstMerit Bank, N.A. legally stands in the same position as RCD Sales Company, LTD with regard to all rights which [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2] may have against RCD Sales Company, LTD.

_____________________________ [Attorney for Plaintiffs]

32

2.1.5 Second Document Request to Dealer

IN LICKING COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, OHIO [CONSUMER 1], et al., Plaintiffs, v. FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. Judge SECOND REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY RCD SALES COMPANY, LTD. Defendant RCD Sales Company, LTD is requested to produce the documents described below within 28 days of service hereof and otherwise in accord with the Rules of Civil Procedure. REQUEST TO PRODUCE 1. The buyers order or similar sales contract between the dealership and William F. Melick, for a certain 1996 Coachman vehicle believed to have been sold between July 1, 2002 and August 20, 2002, and bearing VIN No. [redacted] with a mileage of 29,490 miles reported on the odometer statement.

_____________________________ [Attorney for Plaintiffs]

33

2.1.6 Second Set of Discovery to Manufacturer

IN LICKING COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, OHIO [CONSUMER 1], et al., Plaintiffs, v. FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. Judge SECOND SET OF ADMISSIONS AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS TO DEFENDANT FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC. Plaintiffs submit the following Second Set of Admissions and Document Requests to Defendant Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. to be answered in accord with the Rules of Civil Procedure and within 28 days after service hereof. Supplementation of any response hereto is requested to be made in a timely manner but no less than thirty days prior to the trial hereof, pursuant to C. Rule 26(E). DEFINITIONS Subject vehicle means the recreation vehicle which is the subject of this lawsuit, as further identified in the Complaint filed herein, being a 1999 Fleetwood Pace Arrow Class A. All other phrases and words are defined as in their plain English meaning. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. is requested to produce a complete and accurate photocopy of the following documents. 1. Produce a complete and accurate copy of all documents, complete with all attachments thereto, that were received by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. or its attorneys and which were itemized on the attached exhibit 1. 2. Produce a complete and accurate copy of all documents, complete with all attachments thereto, that were received by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. or its attorneys and which were itemized on the attached exhibit 2.

34

3. Produce a complete and accurate copy of all documents, complete with all attachments thereto, that were received by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. or its attorneys and which were itemized on the attached exhibit 3. 4. Produce a complete and accurate copy of all documents, complete with all attachments thereto, that were received by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. or its attorneys and which were itemized on the attached exhibit 4. 5. Produce a complete and accurate copy of all documents, complete with all attachments thereto, that were received by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. or its attorneys and which were itemized on the attached exhibit 5. 6. Produce a complete and accurate copy of all documents, complete with all attachments thereto, that were received by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. or its attorneys and which were itemized on the attached exhibit 6. 7. Produce a complete and accurate copy of every Expert Witness Designation, complete with all attachments thereto, which was made by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. or its attorneys in the case of Jansen, et al vs DeMontrond Automotive, et al, Case No. 2000-37061, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. 8. Produce a complete and accurate copy of every photograph which Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. has and which was taken of the subject vehicle at any time by any person. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS The defendant Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. is requested to admit that each of the following statements is true and accurate: 1. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. or its attorneys did receive each of the five discovery documents which are itemized on the attached exhibit 1. 2. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. or its attorneys did receive the discovery document which is itemized on the attached exhibit 2. 3. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. or its attorneys did receive each of the eight discovery documents which are itemized on the attached exhibit 3. 4. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. or its attorneys did receive the discovery document which is itemized on the attached exhibit 4. 5. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. or its attorneys did receive the discovery document which is itemized on the attached exhibit 5. 6. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. or its attorneys did receive each of the eight discovery documents which are itemized on the attached exhibit 6.

35

7. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. or its attorneys did receive the attached exhibit 7. 8. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. or its attorneys did file the attached exhibit 8 in the case of Jansen, et al vs DeMontrond Automotive, et al, Case No. 2000-37061, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. 9. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. or its attorneys did receive the attached exhibit 9. 10. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. or its attorneys did file the attached exhibit 10 in the case of Jansen, et al vs DeMontrond Automotive, et al, Case No. 2000-37061, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. 11. The attached exhibit 8 was not accidentally filed in the case of Jansen, et al vs DeMontrond Automotive, et al, Case No. 2000-37061, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. 12. The attached exhibit 10 was not accidentally filed in the case of Jansen, et al vs DeMontrond Automotive, et al, Case No. 2000-37061, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas.

_____________________________ [Attorney for Plaintiffs]

36

2.1.7 Client Letter re Settlement

May 17, 2004 [Consumer] Dear [Consumer]: As we start handling the settlement aspects of your case for you I want to take a moment to explain again two aspects of the way we normally handle settlement negotiations. Our experience tells us that to get what you want, we have to ask for more than what you really want, but still seem reasonable. We do this two ways. First, whenever we send out a settlement demand, our practice is to ask for slightly more than you really want, so that we have room to negotiate down a little and still end up where you actually want to be. The extra amount we include varies from case to case and depends on many factors, including how strong we feel your case is, how hard we may have to fight for you, who the defendant is, our experience with the defense attorney and many other factors. It is always a judgment call that we make when the settlement demand is compiled but the objective is to settle your case for what you want, as quickly and easily as we can. Second, whenever we send out a settlement demand, our practice is to include a request that the defendant pay you first, then to pay the legal costs, and then to also make an additional contribution to a non profit consumer protection organization. The amount of the contribution that is requested varies from case to case and, again, depends on many of the same factors, including whether or not the defendant has done something wrong in your case that they have done before or to other people. This extra amount is on top of what you get first, and none of it goes to you or to us. Typically it is donated to groups like the Legal Aid Society or the National Consumer Law Center (www.ConsumerLaw.org) or the National Association of Consumer Advocates (www.Naca.net) and can be used to fund their education and training efforts for the benefit and protection of other consumers like yourself. Of course, defendants usually do not want to pay all of what they should. That just seems to be the way they are. With our way of handling settlement negotiations, we believe we have a better chance of expediently and efficiently getting you the result that you deserve. If you do not want us to follow this approach in our handling of your case, just say so. Otherwise, we will take this approach in order to get you the best result we can, as fast as we can. As always, if you have any questions at any time, just let us know. Thank you. Sincerely,

[Attorney for Consumer]

37

2.1.8 Settlement Letter

January 7, 2004 [Attorneys for Defendants] Re: [Consumer 1], et al., v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., et al., Settlement Gentlemen: My clients have reviewed the settlement offer received from [Attorney for Defendants] on December 15 and, after further discussions with me, have asked me to respond. My offer last October was an attempt to amicably resolve this dispute early in this fee-shifting case. The December 15 offer is inadequate and is rejected. The defendants should not doubt the resolve my clients have in this matter or my willingness to proceed to trial. Fleetwood is well aware that my negotiation style is not to start high and negotiate downward as though this case were a personal injury case. For years I have always strived to present the best offer that I can and, thereafter, the numbers only go up to reflect the continued damages, inconvenience, and expenses that my clients incur due to the defendants recalcitrant approach to settlement. Still, my clients are willing to continue efforts to resolve the dispute amicably. Please be advised that I have authority to settle this case right now as follows: 1. Defendants would take back the RV and pay off the full amount of the balance owed on it as of today and hold plaintiffs harmless from any financial obligation on the loan; and 2. The title to the RV would be labeled as a Lemon Law Buyback under the Ohio statute before any resale of the unit; and 3. The defendants would pay to plaintiffs the total amount of $49,936.76 in the form of four checks made payable as follows: a. b. c. One check in the amount of $21,693.28 made payable to [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2]; and One check in the amount of $6,743.48 made payable to [Attorney for Plaintiffs]; and One check in the amount of $9,000 made payable to [Plaintiffs Attorney Trust Account] which shall be subsequently disbursed to one or more consumer-protection non-profit corporations as a cy pres payment; and One check in the amount of $12,500 made payable to [Plaintiffs Attorney Trust Account] which shall be subsequently disbursed to the Ohio Attorney Generals Consumer Protection Fund as a cy pres payment (informationally, this amount is

d.

38

one half of the amount which the Attorney General can assess against either or both defendants under R.C. 1345.05, not including its legal fees and costs); and 4. The pending lawsuit would be dismissed under a Stipulated Judgment Entry of dismissal with prejudice and which would state that the defendants will pay all court costs and which would also contain the following findings of law by the Court, and which neither defendant would admit to having done but which both defendants would agree they would not do in the future (i.e., in the vein of a consent decree): a. In the case of the first retail sale of a reacquired motor vehicle in Ohio, the failure of a manufacturer or distributor to provide a written warranty with the vehicle in the form and manner required by R.C. 1345.76(A)(1), is an unfair act in violation of R.C. 1345.02(A), and In the case of the first retail sale of a reacquired motor vehicle in Ohio, the failure to provide to the first retail purchaser, prior to the signing of any document for the sale of the vehicle, the separate written statement which is required by R.C. 1345.76(A)(2), is an unfair act in violation of R.C. 1345.02(A), and In the case of the first retail sale of a reacquired motor vehicle in Ohio, where the first retail purchaser is provided, prior to the signing of any document for the sale of the vehicle, the separate written statement which is required by R.C. 1345.76(A)(2), the failure to cause the first word printed on the separate written statement to be the word WARNING printed in at least ten point type in all capital letters, is an unfair act in violation of R.C. 1345.02(A), and Upon resale of the vehicle by a manufacturer or distributor, if the manufacturer or distributor knows or should know that the purchaser of the vehicle from the manufacturer or distributor resides in or does business in Ohio, then the failure of the manufacturer or distributor to communicate a written instruction to the purchaser that states that the purchaser is required by the manufacturer or distributor to communicate a written instruction to the first retail seller of the vehicle that states that the first retail seller of the vehicle is required by the manufacturer or distributor to obtain the signature of the first retail purchaser on the separate written statement which is required by R.C. 1345.76(A)(2) and that a copy of that signed form is to be given to the retail purchaser at the time of signing and that a copy of it is to be returned to the manufacturer or distributor upon completion of the sale and that a copy of it is to be retained by the first retail seller of the vehicle, is an unfair act in violation of R.C. 1345.02(A), and Upon resale of the vehicle by the manufacturer or distributor, if the manufacturer or distributor knows or should know that the purchaser of the vehicle from the manufacturer or distributor resides in or does business in Ohio, then the failure of the manufacturer or distributor to have the vehicles title branded as required by R.C. 1345.76(C), is an unfair act in violation of R.C. 1345.02(A), and Whenever the manufacturer or distributor is required to use, or does use, the separate written statement which is required by R.C. 1345.76(A)(2), the addition of any words to the language recited in the form proposed in the statute, is an unfair act in violation of R.C. 1345.02(A) except where those added words merely identify the name and address and contact information for the manufacturer or

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

39

g.

h.

i.

j.

k. l. m.

distributor who reacquired the vehicle or any person who acquired ownership of the vehicle after the manufacturer or distributor reacquired the vehicle and before the time of the first retail sale of the vehicle, and The failure of a manufacturer or distributor of a reacquired motor vehicle to establish and maintain reasonable procedures to assure that the first retail purchaser of a reacquired motor vehicle will be provided a written warranty with the vehicle in the form and manner required by R.C. 1345.76(A)(1), is an unfair act in violation of R.C. 1345.02(A), and The failure of a manufacturer or distributor of a reacquired motor vehicle to establish and maintain reasonable procedures to assure that the purchaser from it of a reacquired motor vehicle will comply with its instructions that the first retail purchaser of a reacquired motor vehicle will be provided a written warranty with the vehicle in the form and manner required by R.C. 1345.76(A)(1), is an unfair act in violation of R.C. 1345.02(A), and The failure of a manufacturer or distributor of a reacquired motor vehicle to establish and maintain reasonable procedures to assure that it independently contacts in writing the first retail purchaser of a reacquired motor vehicle, within 90 days of having knowledge of the existence of the first retail sale of said vehicle, and provide written notice to the first retail purchaser that the reacquired motor vehicle was reacquired by the manufacturer or distributor under the provisions of a state Lemon Law, is an unfair act in violation of R.C. 1345.02(A), and The failure of a manufacturer or distributor of a reacquired motor vehicle to establish and maintain reasonable procedures to assure that, upon the first contact or communication it receives from any person asserting an ownership interest in a motor vehicle that was previously reacquired by the manufacturer or distributor within 3 years preceding the receipt of the contact, the manufacturer or distributor provides notice to the inquiring person that the subject motor vehicle was previously reacquired by the manufacturer or distributor under the provisions of a state Lemon Law, is an unfair act in violation of R.C. 1345.02(A), and The failure of a manufacturer or distributor to comply with R.C. 1345.72 is an unfair act in violation of R.C. 1345.02(A), and The failure of a manufacturer or distributor to comply with R.C. 1345.74 is an unfair act in violation of R.C. 1345.02(A), and The failure of a manufacturer or distributor to comply with R.C. 1345.76 is an unfair act in violation of R.C. 1345.02(A).

5. Plaintiffs will sign a general release in favor of all defendants and which would not contain a confidentiality clause; and 6. Plaintiffs are willing to sign a confidentiality clause in favor of the defendants for the additional payment of $5,000 in the form of one check made payable to [Consumer 1 and Consumer 2]; and 7. Settlement is subject to consummation within 30 days; this means that all checks must be delivered to my office within 30 days after acceptance of this offer or my clients reserve the

40

option of electing to enforce the settlement agreement or to declare it null and void ab initio and the case would go right back to where it was, time being of the essence of any settlement of this case ever agreed upon between the parties. This offer is open no more than 10 days from the date of this letter or until such time as any party files any pleading in the pending lawsuit, whichever occurs first. Please consider and promptly advise. Thank you. Sincerely, [Attorney for Plaintiffs]

41

2.1.9 Mediation Presentation (PDF format)

42

Mediation
Conference
Texas Courthouse

Cynthia & Robert Love vs Fleetwood & RCD Sales

Facts
1999

Fleetwood Pace Arrow Class A Bought back under Lemon Law: lemon Multiple Repair Attempts, Deadly Defect, and Days Out of Service Illegal to ReSell Deadly Defect Vehicle Buyback in this or any other state:

Written Disclosure Notice Required No Resale of Deadly Defect Vehicle

History of Vehicle Part 1

Manufactured

on Friday, June 25, 1999

31 Defects in Production (3 still not fixed at delivery to dealer)

Sold

New in Texas Sept. 1, 1999 Dozens of Defects Texas Lawsuit Filed July 25, 2000 Texas Replacement Rv Agreed to in March 2001

History of Vehicle Part 2

Sent

to Fleetwood in Indiana May 2001

Over 90 Repairs Listed

Fleetwood

Sold it to RCD Sales July 2002 Loves saw it mid July

Here on consignment from a Widow

RCD

Sales sold it to Plaintiffs July 26, 2002

Only 2 problems and they were fixed

Vehicles Defects
Original

Owner had defects Loves had some of the same and more Vehicle has had 6 repeat defects

Leveling Jack System, 5 times Generator, 7 times Water Heater, 6 times

Vehicle

has had one deadly defect experienced by both owners Defects still exist

Claims
Consumer

Act (Lemon Law Violation) Moss Warranty Act Act

Fleetwood Fleetwood Fleetwood and RCD Sales

Magnuson

Consumer

Motor

Vehicle Sales Rule

RCD Sales Fleetwood and RCD Sales and Bank

Fraud

Remedies
Magnuson

Moss Act Act: Triple Actual Damages

Difference in Value, at Date of Sale Mandatory + Statutory Damages

Consumer

Commercial

Code: Actual Damages

Difference in Value, at Date of Sale

Fraud:

Punitive Damages

Amount ?

Actual Damages
Difference Sale

in Value at Date of Sale 69,995

Price:

Contract Amount

Vehicle

Value:

Illegal to Sell it

Difference

in Value:

69,995

3x Actual Damages
Difference

in Value: Triple Damages =

23,000 69,000

Mandatory

And Loves Keep Rv

Punitive Damages
To

Discourage Others Amount: Fair and Reasonable Consider:

Egregiousness of Conduct Pattern of Conduct Financial Profit of Conduct Financial Standing of Defendant

Financial Statements
Financial

Status of Each Defendant

In determining what amount of punitive damages are appropriate, you may consider the defendants financial status, the defendants Federal and state income tax returns, and the defendants financial statements and balance sheets. Toledo Fair Housing Center v Nationwide
Mutual Ins. Co. (Lucas Co. C.P., 1996), 94 O.Misc.2d 17

Evidence of the financial condition of the defendant may be considered by you in determining the amount of punitive damages to be allowed and what amount of punishment would be inflicted thereby on the theory that the allowance of a given sum would be a greater punishment to a man of small means than to one possessing larger wealth. Wagner v McDaniels (1984), 9 O.St.3d 184

Fees Issue
At

Trial: Bifurcated from the Merits

Plaintiff has to prevail first

At

Settlement: Package Deal

Entire case must be settled at once

Next Steps
Plaintiffs

remain willing to talk

Defendants always playing catch up

March

3, 2004 Pre Trial

Plaintiffs made offer Defendants counter offered Plaintiffs countered back Defendants stopped discussions

The pieces of a settlement will fall into place Only when the defendants finally realize that settlement Is cheaper than the Verdict will be.

The pieces of a settlement will fall into place Only when the defendants finally realize that settlement Is cheaper than the Verdict will be.

2.1.10 Trial Chart re Parts and Labor Comparison

DATE 11.08.99
12.16.98 04.29.99 06.22.99 06.22.99 06.22.99 06.22.99 06.22.99 06.22.99 06.22.99 06.22.99 ****(more)****

Defect Labor Codes X RV Sells RV New to First Owner

64T20007 18J03001 37r01011 33n02002b 33n02002b 33n02002b 33n02002b 33n02002b 33n02002b 33n02002b

Defect Part Codes

0k08x-64-420a70 uk011-18-520a 0k081-56-903b 0k081-33-020 0k081-33-030 0k01a-33-047 (2) 0k011-33-067 (2) 0k01a-33-075 (2) 0k01a-33-20xa (2) wpso wpso

01.05.00

X RVAgrees to Buy Back RV Defect Labor Codes Melanie Smith 08.11.00 X RV Sells RV to Melanie Smith
11.15.00 11.15.00 11.15.00 11.15.00 11.15.00 11.15.00 11.15.00 11.15.00 31cvz 31cvz1 31cvz1 31cvz1 39cvz 39cvz 41cvz 41cvz

Defect Part Codes

0k08b-18-861b 0k012-32-611 ok65b-15-907c ok2aa-15-907 0k01w-40-100d 0k203-40-305a (2) 0k019-58-560b 0k019-58-605b

43

2.2. Rebuilt Wreck Complaint

IN HAMILTON COUNTY COMMON PLEAS, COURT OHIO [CONSUMER], ET AL, Plaintiffs, v. WALT SWEENEY FORD, INC., ET AL, Defendants. Case No. AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND WITH REQUEST FOR SERVICE FIRST CLAIM: CONSUMER ACT 1. This case involves a tangled web of deceit in the sale of what is believed to be a previously wrecked 2002 Ford Mustang with nearly 12,000 miles, which Defendant Walt Sweeney Ford, Inc.25 said was a one owner and garage kept and that it had never been in rain, sleet, hail or snow but in truth was nothing but a used rental car that was owned by Hertz Rental Company26 and that had been wrecked, damaged and repaired. When they found out the truth, Plaintiffs complained to the dealer about the lies they had been told, but they got nowhere. 2. Before the sale, Plaintiffs saw the Dealers advertisements on T.V. which stated that all consumers were guaranteed credit and they called the Dealer about getting a vehicle. That representation was important to them in selecting this Dealer to purchase a vehicle from. 3. The Dealer called back later and said that the Plaintiffs qualified for a Ford Focus or a Ford Windstar, but the Plaintiffs did not want either of those vehicles. A few days later, the Dealer called again and said it had found a white Ford Mustang and told the Plaintiffs to come down and sign the paperwork and they could have it. 4. The Plaintiffs arrived at the Dealer and saw the 2002 Ford Mustang which the Dealer ended up selling to them for a total of $15,549.41. In the process the Dealer told them the Mustang was a garage-kept, one owner vehicle and that the owner just wanted to get into a bigger car, and represented in writing that the value of the vehicle was $15,985 27. As they were discussing the sale, the Dealer told them that their trade in was actually worth only $4,200.00. When Plaintiffs inquired about the Mustangs low mileage the Dealer told them they were taking a loss on it in order to sell the vehicle to Plaintiffs. Each representation was important to Plaintiffs in deciding on the purchase and the price they would be willing to pay to acquire the

25 26

Hereinafter referred to as Dealer. Failure to disclose the vehicles prior rental car status is a violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act and the Motor Vehicles Sales Rule. See, e.g., State ex rel Fisher v. Rose Chevrolet (1992), 82 OApp3d 520, 612 NE2d 782; McCullough v. Spitzer Motor Center, Inc., (8th Dist.), 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 262 27 See the Kelley Blue Book vehicle window sticker attached.

44

vehicle. None of these representations were written into the sales paperwork, contrary to the requirements of the law, and that was unfair to Plaintiffs.28 5. The Dealer represented to Plaintiffs that the vehicle was still covered by the time and mileage balance of the manufacturers original 3 year/36,000 mile warranty and also came with an additional warranty from the Dealer itself for 13 months/13,000 miles and which would cover 100% of parts and labor29. That representation was important to Plaintiffs in deciding to acquire the vehicle. However, Plaintiffs were not given a copy of the Dealers warranty which contained all the information and terms required by law and that was unfair to Plaintiffs.30 6. Three months later, the Plaintiffs took their vehicle into the Dealer for repair of the headlights under warranty. The Dealer told Plaintiffs that the repairs would not be covered by any warranty, including the Dealers own warranty, saying that the vehicle had been in an accident and the accident is what caused the damage to the headlight, even though nothing in the Dealers own warranty contained such an exclusion of coverage, and that was unfair to Plaintiffs.31 7. Plaintiffs immediately complained to the Dealer salesperson about the lies he told them and at first the salesman claimed to have told Plaintiffs it had been wrecked. When Plaintiffs insisted that they had never been told that this vehicle had been wrecked and that they would not have bought it if they had known, the Dealers salesman admitted it, saying I didnt tell you that. 8. This first claim is for violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act32 by the Dealer and for which Drive Financial Services, L.P. is derivatively liable by operation of law33 and by the express terms of the contract34 between the parties. 9. The allegations of all other paragraphs and claims in this pleading are incorporated as if fully rewritten herein. 10. At all times relevant, Plaintiffs were each a consumer.35 11. At all times relevant, the Dealer did business as Walt Sweeney Ford and Walt Sweeney Automotive, and was and is a corporation and a supplier36 and merchant37, and in the business of selling and arranging for the financing of agreements relating to the sale of motor vehicles, and rendering advice and counsel to consumers with regard to and in relation to same, all within the jurisdiction of this Court.
28

The Motor Vehicle Sales Rule, O.A.C. 109:4-3-16(B)(22), requires that all material oral representations be integrated into the sales agreement. 29 See the Kelley Blue Book vehicle window sticker attached. 30 As previously held by this Court in Brown v Wells, No. A 8208876 (CP, Hamilton, 12-27-82). 31 The act of failing to honor a warranty has been held to violate the Consumer Act. See, e.g., State ex rel Fisher vs Buckeye Home Improvements (C.P. Franklin Co. 5-28-93), 1993 WL 840677, OH AG PIF# 1352. 32 R.C. 1345.01 et seq., and hereinafter referred to as the Consumer Act. 33 16 CFR 433.1 et seq. 34 The retail instalment contract which the financier holds, and under which the Plaintiffs make their monthly payments to the financier, contains the following term: ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER. This term makes the financier also liable for Plaintiffs damages. 35 Within the meaning of R.C. 1345.01(D). 36 Within the meaning of R.C. 1345.01(C). 37 Within the meaning of R.C. 1302.01(A)(5).

45

12. At all times relevant, Defendant Drive Financial Services, L.P. was and is a limited partnership and financing agency38, engaged in the business of financing the sale of motor vehicles to Ohio consumers for said consumers personal use, and was a creditor doing business within the jurisdiction of this Court. 13. The retail instalment contract between Plaintiffs and the Dealer was assigned to the Financier. As a result, the Financier stands in the shoes of the Dealer for all legal purposes.39 Plaintiffs obligation to pay the Financier under the contract between them is subject to all claims and defenses which Plaintiffs have against the Dealer, as are alleged more specifically below, and defendant Financier is not a holder in due course of any instrument signed by Plaintiffs. 14. Defendant Dealer is a motor vehicle dealer obligated to deal with Plaintiffs in good 40 faith in all respects. 15. On or about November 22, 2003 the parties entered into a consumer transaction41, in that Plaintiffs agreed to purchase a certain motor vehicle from the Dealer and the Dealer agreed to sell that vehicle to Plaintiffs on an instalment payment basis, and as part of the deal the Dealer agreed to extend credit to Plaintiffs and to finance the sale of the vehicle itself and did also subsequently arrange for the Financier to extend credit to Plaintiffs. 16. As part of the deal, the Dealer made representations to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs relied upon the truthfulness of all said representations. 17. As part of the deal, the Dealer represented to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs relied on said representation, that the vehicle was a one owner which was garage kept and had never been in rain, sleet, hail or snow. That representation was important to Plaintiffs in deciding to acquire the vehicle, but not written into the sales documents, contrary to the requirements of the law.42 18. As part of the deal, and by operation of law, the Dealer also gave to Plaintiffs an implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for use, even though in other paperwork the Dealer attempted to disclaim or otherwise limit the implied warranties that it had given to Plaintiffs, which was unfair and deceptive to Plaintiffs and in violation of the law.43. 19. The motor vehicle involved in the transaction, i.e., the goods44, is a certain 2002 Ford Mustang, VIN [redacted]. A copy of the agreement is attached as Exhibit 1. 20. Defendant Dealer knew or should have known that the prior damage and repairs to the 2002 Ford Mustang existed and that those facts would be important to Plaintiffs in making their decision to acquire the vehicle, and that it should have been disclosed to Plaintiffs on or before the date of sale, but it did not do so.45 21. Defendant Dealer knew or should have known that the information and truth which it withheld from Plaintiffs about the vehicle being owned by a car rental company and being involved in an accident was something that the Plaintiffs would want to know and was material to the transaction.
Within the meaning of R.C. 1302.01(A)(6). See, Nations Credit v Pheanis (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 71, 656 N.E.2d 998. 40 Within the meaning of R.C. 4517.01 (BB) and R.C. 1301.01(S). 41 Within the meaning of R.C. 1345.01(A). 42 O.A.C. 109:4-3-16(B)(22). 43 See, e.g., 15 USC 2308; Bush v American Motors Sales Corp. (1984, DC Colo), 575 F Supp 1581. 44 Within the meaning of R.C. 1310.01(A)(8). 45 It has been held that it is an unfair and unconscionable act or practice for a supplier to misrepresent the value of a used vehicle by failing to disclose the fact that the car had been seriously wrecked prior to consumers purchase, entitling the consumer to treble damages under R.C. 1345.09. See, Ford v Brewer (Ct. App., 10th District, Franklin Co., 12-9-86), 86-LW-3697, Case No. 86AP-626, OH AG PIF # 888.
39 38

46

22. As a result of the above facts, inter alia, Plaintiffs requested that the Dealer cancel the transaction and refund Plaintiffs money, but the Dealer refused and that was unfair to Plaintiffs.46 23. As a result of the above facts, inter alia, before, during or after a consumer transaction between Plaintiffs and defendant Dealer, the Dealer committed one or more unfair and deceptive acts in violation of R.C. 1345.02(A) and unconscionable acts in violation of R.C. 1345.03(A). 24. During the course of the consumer transaction between the Dealer and the Plaintiffs, the Dealer provided conflicting notices of warranty rights and warranties to Plaintiffs and that was unfair to Plaintiffs. 25. Although federal law required the Dealer to disclose in writing to Plaintiffs whether its warranty to Plaintiffs was a full warranty or a limited warranty47, the Dealer failed to disclose either and, thus, by operation of law the dealers warranty to Plaintiffs is a full warranty under the law.48 26. As a result of the above facts, inter alia, Defendant represented to Plaintiffs that the subject of a consumer transaction had benefits that it did not have49 and representing that the subject vehicle was a particular standard, quality, or grade that it was not50. 27. As a result of the above facts, inter alia, before, during or after a consumer transaction between Plaintiffs and Defendant Dealer, Defendant Dealer committed an unconscionable act or practice for which the Financier is derivatively liable in connection with a consumer transaction, in that it knowingly made, at the time the consumer transaction was entered into with Plaintiffs, a misleading statement of opinion on which the Plaintiffs were likely to rely to their detriment.51 28. As a result of the above facts, the defendant Dealer breached its warranties and representations to Plaintiffs and that was unfair, deceptive and unconscionable to Plaintiffs52, and defendant Financier is subject to all claims and defenses which Plaintiffs may assert against the Dealer and is therefore derivatively and secondarily liable to Plaintiffs for the liability of the Dealer. 29. One or more of the representations the Dealer made to Plaintiffs were both material and false at the time they were given to Plaintiffs and the Dealer knew or should have known they were false at the time they were made, and that was unfair and deceptive and unconscionable to Plaintiffs. 30. Before, during and/or after the sale, the Dealer made representations to Plaintiffs which created in the mind of Plaintiffs, who was a reasonable consumer, a false impression as to one or more material aspects of the deal53 and that was unfair to the Plaintiffs.

Failure to honor a request for rescission has been held to violate the Consumer Act. See, e.g., Credit Acceptance Corporation v. Banks (Ct. App. 8th District, Cuyahoga Co., 12-16-99), 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 6058, OH AG PIF #1840. 47 15 USC 2303. 48 Hughes v Segal Enterprises, Inc. (1986, WD Ark), 627 F Supp 1231. 49 In violation of R.C. 1345.02(B)(1). 50 In violation of R.C. 1345.02(B)(2). 51 In violation of R.C. 1345.03(B)(6). 52 As previously so held in the progeny of cases beginning with Brown v. Lyons (Ohio Com.Pl. 1974), 43 Ohio Misc. 14, 332 N.E.2d 380, 72 O.O.2d 216. 53 In violation of Ohio Administrative Code 109:4-3-16(B)(3).

46

47

31. Before, during and/or after the sale, the Dealer failed to integrate into a written sales contract all material statements, representations or promises, oral or written, made prior to obtaining the Plaintiffs signature on the written contract with the Dealer.54 32. The Defendant Dealer had notices of the breaches of the agreement within a reasonable time and a reasonable opportunity to cure its breach but failed to do so and that was unfair to Plaintiffs. 33. The Defendant Dealer refused to honor Plaintiffs rescission of the transaction and that was unfair to Plaintiffs. 34. Plaintiffs suffered and shall continue to suffer actual, incidental and consequential damages as a direct and proximate result of the inability or other failure of Defendant Dealers failure, refusal or other inability to cure the breach and for which the Financier is derivatively liable. SECOND CLAIM: MOTOR VEHICLE SALES RULE 35. The allegations of all other paragraphs and claims in this pleading are incorporated as if fully rewritten herein. 36. This second claim is for additional violations of the Consumer Act and the Motor Vehicle Sales Rule55, by the Dealer and for which the Financier is derivatively liable. 37. Before, during, or after a consumer transaction between the parties, the Defendant Dealer made one or more representations which could, and did, create in the mind of a reasonable consumer a false impression as to the value of the vehicle.56 38. Before, during, or after a consumer transaction between the parties, the Defendant Dealer made one or more representations which could, and did, create in the mind of a reasonable consumer a false impression as to the prior use of the vehicle.57 39. The Purchase Agreement does not represent all of the terms of the entire agreement between the parties and failed to integrate all material statements, representations or promises, oral or written, made by the Dealer prior to obtaining the consumers signature on a written contract with the Defendant Dealer.58 40. Before, during or after a consumer transaction between the parties, the dealer failed to disclose, prior to obtaining the Plaintiffs signature of any document for purchasing the vehicle, the fact that the vehicle had been previously used as a rental vehicle.59 41. Before, during, or after a consumer transaction between the parties, the dealer failed to disclose, prior to obtaining the Plaintiffs signature of any document for purchasing the vehicle, the extent of previous damage to the vehicle.60 42. Before, during, or after a consumer transaction between the parties, the Defendant Dealer delivered a motor vehicle to the Plaintiffs pursuant to a sale and represented that the vehicle included the remaining time and mileage portion of the manufacturers original new car 3 year/36,000 mile warranty when, in truth and fact, it did not and that was unfair to Plaintiffs.61
54 55

In violation of Ohio Administrative Code 109:4-3-16(B)(22). Ohio Administrative Code 109:4-3-16(B). 56 In violation of O.A.C. 109:4-3-16(B)(3). 57 In violation of O.A.C. 109:4-3-16(B)(3). 58 In violation of O.A.C. 109:4-3-16(B)(22). 59 In violation of O.A.C. 109:4-3-16(B)(15). 60 In violation of O.A.C. 109:4-3-16(B)(14). 61 In violation of O.A.C. 109:4-3-16(B)(3).

48

43. At the time it made such representation to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant Dealer knew or should have known at that time that the manufacturers original new car warranty would not cover the repairs for the damage to the vehicle which had occurred prior to the sale to Plaintiffs and withheld that information from Plaintiffs and that was unfair, deceptive and unconscionable to Plaintiffs.62 44. As a result of the above, inter alia, the Defendant Dealer violated the Motor Vehicle Sales Rule and the Consumer Act before, during or after a consumer transaction between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Dealer and for which the Financier is derivatively liable. THIRD CLAIM: FTC USED CAR WINDOW STICKER RULE 45. The allegations of all other paragraphs and claims in this pleading are incorporated as if fully rewritten herein. 46. This third claim is for violations of the FTC Used Car Window Sticker Rule63 and additional violations of the Consumer Act by the Dealer and for which the Financier is derivatively liable. 47. Before, during or after a consumer transaction between the parties, the Dealer failed to properly fill out and post on the subject vehicle, and later deliver a copy of to Plaintiffs, a Buyers Guide form that complied with applicable law and that was unfair to Plaintiffs.64 48. At all times relevant, the motor vehicle the Defendant Dealer sold Plaintiff was a vehicle65 and a used vehicle66, said defendant was a Dealer67, and Plaintiffs were each a consumer68. 49. Defendant Dealer sold or offered for sale a used vehicle in or affecting commerce, as commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. 50. Defendant Dealer entered into a consumer transaction with Plaintiffs and at that time sold or offered for sale a used vehicle in or affecting commerce, as commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, and at that time failed to have properly posted on the subject vehicle a window sticker form, a.k.a. a Buyers Guide form, that complied with the FTC Used Car Window Sticker Rule. 51. Defendant Dealer entered into a consumer transaction with Plaintiffs and at that time said Dealer offered a used vehicle for sale to these consumer-Plaintiffs without preparing, filling in as applicable and displaying on that vehicle a Buyers Guide in the form and manner required by law for its display and use. 52. At the time the Defendant Dealer dealt with Plaintiffs, it knew or should have known that its forms did not comply with the applicable law. 53. As a result of the above, among other things, the Dealer has committed an unfair and/or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction.69

62 63

In violation of R.C. 1345.02(B)(10) and/or R.C. 1345.03(B)(6). 16 C.F.R. 455.1 et seq. 64 Cummins v Dave Fillmore Car Co., Inc. (Ct. App., 10th District, Franklin Co., 11-27-87), 110 Ohio App.3d 504, 674 N.E.2d 779, OH AG PIF# 641. 65 Within the meaning of 16 C.F.R. 455.1(c)(1). 66 Within the meaning of 16 C.F.R. 455.1(C)(2). 67 Within the meaning of 16 C.F.R. 455.1(c)(3). 68 Within the meaning of 16 C.F.R. 455.1(c)(4). 69 In violation of R.C. 1345.02(A).

49

54. As a result of the above, inter alia, the Defendant Dealer committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of the FTCs Used Car Window Sticker Rule and the Consumer Act and for which the Financier is derivatively liable. 55. As a result of the above, inter alia, the Defendant Dealer committed one or more unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Consumer Act, before, during or after one or more consumer transactions between Plaintiff and one or more of the Defendants. FOURTH CLAIM: FEDERAL PRIVACY LAWS 56. The allegations of all other paragraphs and claims in this pleading are incorporated as if fully rewritten herein. 57. This third claim is for violations of the federal Privacy Laws and Regulations70 and additional violations of the Consumer Act by the Dealer and for which the Financier is derivatively liable. 58. At all times relevant, Plaintiffs were each a customer and a consumer in relation to the Dealer, and the Dealer was a financial institution, and the parties were engaged in a customer relationship, all in relation to the transaction between them and within the meaning of 15 USC 6801 et seq. 59. The Financier is not an affiliate of the Dealer and the Dealer is not an affiliate of the Financier, and each was a nonaffiliated third party with respect to the other, all within the meaning of 15 USC 6801 et seq. 60. Before, during or after a consumer transaction between the Dealer and the Plaintiffs, the Dealer disclosed customer information about the Plaintiffs, including nonpublic personal information about the Plaintiffs, to the Financier. 61. Plaintiffs believe that the Dealer has done exactly the same thing in hundreds of other consumer transactions in the last two years with other similarly situated customers and consumers whose Dealer retail instalment sales contract was assigned to the named Financier herein and other financial institutions who were nonaffiliated third parties. 62. Before, during and after a consumer transaction between the Dealer and the Plaintiffs, the Dealer provided Plaintiffs with a Privacy Notice in an attempt to comply with applicable federal Privacy Laws and Regulations, but the form fails to comply with the requirements of the law in one or more manners. 63. Plaintiffs believe that the Dealer has done exactly the same thing in hundreds of other consumer transactions in the last two years with other similarly situated customers and consumers. 64. Defendant Dealer used the identical Privacy Notice form in numerous other consumer transactions for the sale of motor vehicles and thereby violated the applicable laws in numerous other transactions with other consumers, many of whom are unaware of the violation. 65. At the time the Defendant Dealer dealt with Plaintiff, it knew or should have known that its form did not comply with the applicable law. 66. At the time the Defendant Dealer dealt with other consumers in the sale of motor vehicles, it knew or should have known that its form did not comply with the applicable law. 67. The Defendant Dealers violation of this law with respect to this consumer-Plaintiffs is, in one or more manners, identical with the Defendant Dealers violation of this law with respect to other consumer purchasers of motor vehicles.
70

15 USC 6801 et seq. and 16 CFR 313 et seq.

50

68. Defendant Dealer violated this law in at least 100 consumer transactions involving motor vehicles and more likely several thousand consumer transactions during the last two years. 69. Plaintiff, and those persons who are similarly situated with regard to the violation of this law, are believed to number in excess of 1,000 persons. 70. Those persons who are similarly situated as Plaintiff, with regard to the violation of this law, each received a form identical to those given to Plaintiffs and which violate the law as stated herein. 71. There are common questions of law and fact in this action that relate to and affect the rights of Plaintiff and those persons who are similarly situated are Plaintiffs and those persons similarly situated are entitled to relief. 72. The claim of the Plaintiffs in this regard, and in this claim, is typical of the claim of each person similar situated to the Plaintiffs. 73. The claim of the Plaintiffs in this regard, and in this claim, just as the claim of each similarly situated consumer would be, may be dependent in whole or in part on a showing of the acts, omissions, and admissions of the Defendant Dealer giving rise to the rights of the Plaintiffs to the reliefs sought herein. 74. There is no conflict between Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons with respect to this cause of action, or with respect to the respective claim for relief herein set forth. 75. The identity of each individual who is similarly situated to the Plaintiffs can be ascertained from the books and records maintained by the Defendant Dealer. 76. As a result of the above, among other things, the Dealer has committed an unfair and/or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction.71 77. Before, during or after a consumer transaction between the Dealer and the Plaintiffs, the Dealer failed to comply in one or more manners with its statutory and other obligations and duties under 15 USC 6801 et seq and one or more of its enabling provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations, and that was unfair and deceptive to Plaintiffs.72 FIFTH CLAIM: BREACH OF CONTRACT 78. The allegations of all other paragraphs and claims in this pleading are incorporated as if fully rewritten herein. 79. This fourth claim is for breach of contract and/or warranties and additional violations of the Consumer Act by each and every defendant, jointly and/or severally. 80. As a result of the above, inter alia, each and every defendant breached its contract and warranties with Plaintiffs, and that was unfair and/or deceptive to Plaintiffs.73 SIXTH CLAIM: MAGNUSON MOSS ACT 81. The allegations of all other paragraphs and claims in this pleading are incorporated as if fully rewritten herein.

In violation of R.C. 1345.02(A). By application of R.C. 1345.02(A) and R.C. 1345.02(C). 73 As previously so held in the progeny of cases beginning with Brown v. Lyons (Ohio Com.Pl. 1974), 43 Ohio Misc. 14, 332 N.E.2d 380, 72 O.O.2d 216.
72

71

51

82. This fifth claim is for violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act74 and for additional violations of the Consumer Act by the Dealer and for which the Financier is derivatively liable. 83. Before, during or after a consumer transaction between the parties, the Dealer failed to comply with the terms of its warranty in one or more manners, and that was unfair to Plaintiffs. 84. Before, during or after a consumer transaction between the parties, the Dealer failed to comply with its statutory and other obligations under the Magnuson Moss Act, and that was unfair to Plaintiffs. 85. As a result of the above, inter alia, the Dealer violated the Magnuson Moss Act and that was unfair and/or deceptive to Plaintiffs.75 SEVENTH CLAIM: FRAUD 86. The allegations of all other paragraphs and claims in this pleading are incorporated as if fully rewritten herein. 87. This sixth claim is for fraud and deceit by the Defendant Dealer for which the Financier is derivatively liable. 88. During the course of the transaction between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Dealer, several false representations of fact were made by the Defendant Dealer with knowledge of its falsity or with utter disregard and recklessness about its falsity that knowledge may be concluded or found, as stated above in more detail. 89. During the course of the subject transaction between Plaintiffs and the Defendant Dealer, a knowing concealment of fact which was done by said Defendant Dealer at a time when, and under circumstances where, there was a duty to disclose, to wit: the truth about the condition of the vehicle and its prior damage and history as a rental company vehicle and the effect that would have on the value of the vehicle and the other misrepresentations stated and referred to above. 90. The Defendant Dealers acts and omissions of representation and concealment were material to the transaction. 91. The Defendant Dealers acts and omissions of representation and concealment were made with the intent of misleading Plaintiffs into relying upon it. 92. The Defendant Dealers acts and omissions of representation and concealment were made with the fraudulent intent of inducing Plaintiffs to enter into a written contract to purchase the motor vehicle, which it did. 93. The Plaintiffs were justified in relying on the representation and the lack of any concealment by the Defendant Dealer and did, in fact, so rely. 94. As a result of the above, the Dealer committed one or more acts of fraud upon Plaintiffs and that was unfair to Plaintiffs. 95. As a direct and proximate result of the above, Plaintiffs were injured and the injury was caused by Plaintiffs reliance on the representation and concealment.

74 75

15 U.S.C. 2301 et seq. A violation of the Magnuson Moss Act has been held to be a per se violation of the Consumer Act in the progeny of cases beginning with Brown vs. Spears (1979, Franklin Municipal Court, Ohio), 1979 WL 52451, OH AG PIF# 403.

52

WHEREFORE, judgment is demanded against each Defendant, jointly and severally, as deemed proper and lawful by the Court, as follows: PRAYER FOR RELIEF 1. On the first claim, actual damages or $200.00 statutory damages or three times actual damages, whichever is greater, and other damages, remedies, and relief as deemed proper and lawful by the Court, for each and every violation that may be proven at trial; 2. On the second claim, actual damages or $200.00 statutory damages or three times actual damages, whichever is greater, and other damages, remedies, and relief as deemed proper and lawful by the Court, for each and every violation that may be proven at trial; 3. On the third claim, actual damages or $200.00 statutory damages or three times actual damages, whichever is greater, and other damages, remedies, and relief as deemed proper and lawful by the Court, for each and every violation that may be proven at trial; 4. On the fourth claim, actual damages or $200.00 statutory damages or three times actual damages, whichever is greater, and other damages, remedies, and relief as deemed proper and lawful by the Court, for each and every violation that may be proven at trial; 5. On the fifth claim, actual damages or $200.00 statutory damages or three times actual damages, whichever is greater, and other damages, remedies, and relief as deemed proper and lawful by the Court, for each and every violation that may be proven at trial; 6. On the sixth claim, actual damages or $200.00 statutory damages or three times actual damages, whichever is greater, and other damages, remedies, and relief as deemed proper and lawful by the Court, for each and every violation that may be proven at trial; 7. On the seventh claim, actual damages in an amount within the jurisdiction of this Court and punitive damages in an amount in excess of $25,000 and as deemed fair and equitable at the trial thereof, and such other remedies and relief as deemed proper and lawful. Plus on every applicable claim, expenses of suit and litigation, interest, reasonable attorney fees, and for judgment against one or more Defendants in an amount to be determined as legal and proper by the Court together with any and all other legal and equitable relief deemed necessary and just, plus all costs, and any and all of this legal and equitable relief deemed necessary and just. Plaintiffs Demand Trial by Jury on All Issues and All Claims.

____________________________ [Attorney for Plaintiffs]

53

REQUEST FOR SERVICE TO THE CLERK: Please serve a copy of the foregoing upon the defendants at the address listed below, by certified mail, return receipt requested: [Attorneys for Defendants]

____________________________ [Attorney for Plaintiff]

54

2.3 Class Complaint for Padding Repair Bills

IN BUTLER COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, OHIO [CONSUMER], Plaintiff, v. WEST OF SWEDEN, INC. DBA JUST SAAB C/O MICHAEL G. KOHN, STATUTORY AGENT 6323 MADISON ROAD CINCINNATI, OH 45227, Defendant. Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND INTRODUCTORY FACTS 1. This case is about a Saab with a bad convertible top that could never be fixed under warranty but when the warranty ran out the Dealer said they could fix it now. Problem was, they didnt tell Plaintiff that they would break it in order to fix it. The part they fixed appears to be fixed now, but the part they broke is still broke, and the Dealer wants the Plaintiff to pay them $2,200.00 to fix the part they admit they broke. While the broken part was not a straw, it was the straw that broke the camels back. 2. To add proverbial insult to injury, the Dealer has also been using a computer program in its Service Department that has bilked thousands of customers out of an average of about $185,000 per year in padded billing practices. 3. The allegations of all other paragraphs and claims in this pleading are incorporated as if fully rewritten herein. 4. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was a consumer76. 5. At all times relevant, West of Sweden, Inc. dba Just Saab and dba Just Saab of Cincinnati77 was and is a corporation and a supplier78 and merchant79, engaged in the business of selling and servicing motor vehicles within the jurisdiction of this Court, and in the business of arranging for the financing of agreements relating to the sale and lease of motor vehicles, and rendering advice and counsel to consumers with regard to and in relation to same, all within the jurisdiction of this Court.

76

Within the meaning of Ohios Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices statute, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.01(D). 77 Hereafter referred to as the Dealer. 78 Within the meaning of R.C. 1345.01(C). 79 Within the meaning of R.C. 1302.01(A)(5).

55

6. At all times relevant, the Dealer engaged in the business of selling and servicing new motor vehicles within the jurisdiction of this Court. 7. On or about February 18, 1997 the parties entered into a consumer transaction80, in that Plaintiff agreed to purchase from the Dealer, the Dealer agreed to sell to Plaintiff, and as part of the deal the Manufacturer agreed to warrant the vehicle to be free from malfunctions, the vehicle being a certain 1997 Saab 900 S Convertible motor vehicle. 8. A copy of the sales contract is attached as Exhibit 1. 9. The goods81 which were the subject of the agreement included a motor vehicle being a certain 1997 Saab 900 S Convertible. CLASS CLAIM: CONSUMER ACT 10. The allegations of all other paragraphs and claims in this pleading are incorporated as if fully rewritten herein. 11. This claim is for additional violations of the Consumer Act by the Dealer. 12. Since at least 1997, the Dealer has used one or more computer programs to generate service department invoices and bills for consumers who obtained repair services from it, unfairly and deceptively padding those bills with ambiguous, false, fabricated and fictitious charges and collecting monies from consumers for charges that have little or no actual relation to the services being rendered, and which earned the Dealer about $185,000.00 per year in extra and undeserved profit at the unwitting expense of the Dealers customers. 13. Those computer programs were designed, in whole or in part, by the Dealer. 14. The Dealer reviewed those computer programs and approved of their operation before implementing them in its routine practices in its service department. 15. As part of the computer programs it designed, approved, and implemented, the Dealers computer program automatically imposes one or more additional charges on the invoice of every paying customer for items the computer program designates as Misc or EPA/Shop Supplies or Cinergy Surcharge. 16. The additional charges are automatically calculated from a formula which was designed and/or approved and/or implemented by the Dealer, and is designed to generate between about 7 and 13 percent additional income for each dollar charged the customer in the Dealers Service Department, plus additional sales tax on the padded amounts. 17. The Dealer has admitted that it routinely does not notify customers in advance of the full amount it is going to charge for these additional and unforseen surcharges. 18. The Dealer has stated that the charges for what it calls EPA/Shop Supplies go into an EPA Fund which it uses to pay EPA charges with, but provides no accounting of that money to anyone but itself. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff states that the EPA makes no charges or assessments against the Dealer which justify the 7% to 9% of additional charges being quietly and surreptitiously placed on consumer bills. 19. When asked about the Cinergy Surcharge the Dealer admitted that customers were not told about that charge in advance at all, and that no one in the Service Department knew how it was calculated or where it came from, or that it was going to even start to be routinely charged on consumer bills someone above the Department made that decision and it just happened.
80 81

Within the meaning of R.C. 1345.01(A). Within the meaning of R.C. 1310.01(A)(8).

56

20. The Dealer has admitted that it charges tax on the padded amounts that it is routinely adding into the consumer bills without consumers knowing it in advance, so in addition to the increased and unjustified charges, the resulting total also causes an increase in the amount of tax paid in each transaction. Thus, consumers are paying three different increases in what would otherwise be their normal bill. 21. As an example, on June 29, 2001 the Dealer generated invoice number 73871 for Plaintiff, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2. That invoice charged Plaintiff about $18.00 more than was rightfully owed for the services rendered. 22. As a second example, on October 27, 2000 the Dealer generated invoice number 65540 for Plaintiff, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 3. That invoice charged Plaintiff about $43.00 more than was rightfully owed for the services rendered. 23. As another example, on October 13, 1999 the Dealer generated invoice number 52938 for Plaintiff, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 4. That invoice charged Plaintiff about $5.00 more than was rightfully owed for the services rendered. 24. Using just Plaintiffs own known numbers, the Dealer charged Plaintiff an average of about $17.60 more on each repair than was rightfully owed for the average services being rendered. 25. Between October 13, 1999 and June 29, 2001, the Dealer generated about 21,000 invoices for customers using its Service Department. 26. Based on these averages, that means the Dealer wrongfully charged and received about $369,000.00 from its customers in the last 23 months. That is over $16,000 per month, or $4,000 per week in extra unearned profit. 27. As a result of the above, among other things, the Dealer has committed an unfair and/or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction.82 28. As a result of the above, among other things, the Dealer falsely represented that one or more portions of a consumer transaction were supplied in accordance with a previous representation when it had not been.83 29. As a result of the above, among other things, the Dealer falsely represented that one or more obligations existed by a consumer when the representation was false.84 30. As a result of the above, among other things, the Dealer charged for a repair or service which had not been authorized by the consumer.85 31. As a result of the above, among other things, the Dealer failed to disclose upon the first contact with the consumer that a charge not directly related to the actual performance of the repair or service would be imposed by the Dealer.86 32. As a result of the above, among other things, the Dealer failed to disclose upon the first contact with a consumer the basis upon which a charge would be imposed.87 33. As a result of the above, among other things, the Dealer falsely represented that services were necessary when such was not the fact.88 34. As a result of the above, among other things, the Dealer falsely represented that services have been performed when such was not the fact.89
82 83

In violation of R.C. 1345.02(A). In violation of R.C. 1345.02(B)(5). 84 In violation of R.C. 1345.02(B)(10). 85 In violation of Ohio Administrative Code 109:4-3-13(C)(5). 86 In violation of R.C. 1345.02(A). 87 In violation of R.C. 1345.02(A). 88 In violation of O.A.C. 109:4-3-13(C)(8).

57

35. As a result of the above, among other things, the Dealer materially understated or mistated the estimated cost of the repairs or services.90 36. As a result of the above, among other things, the Dealer failed to provide the consumer with an honest and truthful itemized list of services rendered, including a list of parts or materials and a statement of whether they are used, remanufactured or rebuilt, if not new, and the cost thereof to the consumer, and the amount charged for labor.91 CLASS ALLEGATIONS 37. Whenever in this complaint reference is made to any act, deed or transaction of any corporation, such allegation shall be deemed to mean that said corporation engaged in such act, deed or transaction by or through its officers, directors, agents, employees or representatives while they were engaged in the management, direction, control or transaction of its business or affairs. 38. Plaintiff is bringing this action on behalf of herself and other members of a class of persons, believed to number in excess of 1,000 persons consisting of those persons who are similarly situated, such as will be further defined by in Plaintiffs motion to certify the class, to be filed later. 39. This is a class action under the provisions of Rule 23(A), Rule 23(B)(1), Rule 23(B)(2), and Rule 23(B)(3), for damages, injunction, and relief consistent and subordinate thereto, including costs, expenses of investigation and litigation, and attorney fees. 40. The class so represented by Plaintiff in this action, and of which Plaintiff is a member, consists of: every consumer who paid to Dealer any money which was charged and/or billed as a cinergy surcharge or EPA/shop supply charge or any increase in tax paid because of one of those charges during the last two years. 41. There are common questions of law and fact in the action that relate to and affect the rights of each member of the class and the relief sought is common to the entire class. 42. The claims of the Plaintiff, who is a representative of the class herein, are typical of the claims of the class, in that the claims of all members of the class, including Plaintiffs, depend on a showing of the acts, omissions, and admissions of the Defendant giving rise to the rights of the Plaintiff to the reliefs sought herein. 43. There is no conflict between Plaintiff and other members of the class with respect to this action, or with respect to the claims for relief herein set forth. 44. The named Plaintiff is the representative party for the class, and able to, and will, fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 45. Further, this action is properly maintained as a class action inasmuch as the questions of law and fact common to the class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other methods available for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. 46. The identity of each individual member of the class can be ascertained from the books and records maintained by the Defendant.

89 90

In violation of O.A.C. 109:4-3-13(C)(9). In violation of O.A.C. 109:4-3-13(C)(11). 91 In violation of O.A.C. 109:4-3-13(C)(12).

58

WHEREFORE, judgment is demanded against defendant as deemed proper and lawful by the Court, alternatively as follows: PRAYER FOR RELIEF 1. On the class claim, an order certifying the class which Plaintiff will represent, an order prohibiting further violations of the law, $200 statutory damages for each class member, disgorgement of all illegal profits and gains by the Dealer, reimbursement to all class members of all illegal charges collected by the Dealer, and attorney fees and costs of litigation and any and all other legal and equitable relief to which Plaintiff and the class may be entitled. Plus on each and every claim, expenses of suit and litigation, interest from the date the contract was consummated, together with any and all other legal and equitable relief deemed necessary and just, plus all costs, and any and all other legal and equitable relief deemed necessary and just. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues and all claims.

______________________ [Attorney for Plaintiff]

59

2.4 Class Complaint for Altering FTC Used Car Sticker

IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, OHIO [CONSUMER], Plaintiff, v. ODYSSEY CORPORATION DBA TOY STORE 4905 SPRINGBORO PIKE DAYTON, OH 45342 and PREFERRED WARRANTIES, INC. 117 RT. 183 P.O. BOX 278 ORWIGSBURG, PA 17961, Defendants. Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND (ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES ACT & FEDERAL LAW) 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES 1. This case involves large-scale violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, Ohio Revised Code 1345.01 et seq., by Defendant ODYSSEY CORPORATION dba TOY STORE [hereinafter defendant car dealer] and Defendant PREFERRED WARRANTIES, INC. [hereinafter defendant service company]. 2. Named Plaintiff, [Consumer], [hereinafter plaintiff] and the class of persons she seeks to represent, are each consumers and each a purchaser of a used motor vehicle acquired from defendant car dealer during the previous four years in connection with consumer transactions as defined by the Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.01(A), and in each case engaged in a consumer transaction with subsequent to an unfair or deceptive act committed by defendant service company. 3. Plaintiffs believe and have reason to believe that the defendant car dealer and defendant service company each jointly and severally violated the laws cited below in the exact same manner with regard to other consumers in other consumer transactions involving the sale of used motor vehicles inasmuch as the violation consists of said defendants failure to include federally mandated language and its alteration of federally mandated language in its forms used in consumer transactions involving the sale and marketing of used motor vehicles in Ohio.

60

4. Defendant service company does business in Ohio and has its place of business in Pennsylvania and is a supplier within the meaning of the Consumer Sales Practices Act. 5. Defendant car dealer does business and has its place of business in Montgomery County, Ohio and is a supplier within the meaning of the Consumer Sales Practices Act and a merchant within the meaning of the Ohio Commercial Code. 6. Defendant car dealer solicited, affected, effected, or otherwise engaged in a consumer transaction with plaintiff and/or the members of her class, by its actions and omissions stated elsewhere in this complaint. 7. Defendant service company solicited, affected, effected, or otherwise engaged in a consumer transaction with plaintiff and/or the members of her class and also solicited, affected, effected, or otherwise engaged in similar consumer transactions between other car dealers who were suppliers in Ohio and Ohio consumers, by its actions and omissions stated elsewhere in this complaint. 8. The defendants were, jointly and severally, at all times relevant to this case, engaged in the business of effecting or soliciting one or more consumer transactions in Ohio with plaintiff and other Ohio consumers between the present date and four years prior hereto, within the meaning of O.R.C. 1345.01(A). 2. FIRST CLAIM: CONSUMER ACT 9. The allegations of all other paragraphs and claims in this pleading are incorporated as if fully rewritten herein. 10. This claim is for violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act by defendants. 11. Whenever in this complaint reference is made to any act, deed or transaction of any corporation, such allegation shall be deemed to mean that said corporation engaged in such act, deed or transaction by or through its officers, directors, agents, employees or representatives while they were engaged in the management, direction, control or transaction of its business or affairs. 12. Defendant car dealer used a Buyers Guide window sticker form that was provided by defendant service company and which form violated the FTC Car Window Sticker Rule by failure to include mandatory language and by alteration of the mandatory language required by federal law. 13. The defendant car dealer committed one or more unfair and/or deceptive and/or unconscionable acts or practices in violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act before, during and/or after one or more consumer transactions occurred in Ohio by, inter alia, its distribution, marketing, promotion, display and/or use of the Buyers Guide form in violation of the FTC Used Car Window Sticker Rule. 14. By its distribution of the violative form, intending and with knowledge that such distribution would ultimately take place before, during and/or after one or more consumer transactions in Ohio, the defendant service company committed one or more unfair and/or deceptive and/or unconscionable acts or practices in violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act before, during and/or after one or more consumer transactions occurred between Ohio consumers and suppliers. 3. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

61

15. Plaintiff is bringing this action on behalf of herself and other members of the class of persons, believed to number in excess of 500 persons in each subclass, and consisting of those persons who: The ODYSSEY CORPORATION dba TOY STORE Subclass: a. entered into a sales transaction with defendant car dealer, b. involving the sale of a used motor vehicle, c. during the two years prior to the filing hereof, d. where the window sticker form used by the car dealer was that form identical to the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1; The Service Company Subclass: a. entered into a consumer transaction with an Ohio car dealer b. involving the sale of a used motor vehicle c. during the two years prior to the filing hereof, d. where the window sticker form used by the car dealer was that form identical to the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 16. All provisions of this complaint which are framed as a class action are set forth and asserted under the provisions of Rule 23(A), Rule 23(B)(2), and Rule 23(B)(3), for damages, injunction, and relief consistent and subordinate thereto including costs, expenses of investigation and litigation, and attorney fees. 17. The exact number of each subclass, as above identified and described is unknown, but is estimated to be in excess of 500 persons; the class is so numerous that joinder of individual members is impracticable. 18. There are common questions of law and fact in the action that relate to and affect the rights of each member of the class and the relief sought is common to the entire class, mainly, inter alia: a. b. whether the subject Buyers Guide window sticker violates the FTC Used Car Window Sticker Rule; whether the violation of the FTC Used Car Window Sticker Rule constitutes a pattern and/or practice of unfair or deceptive acts prohibited by the Consumer Sales Practices Act; whether the violation of the FTC Used Car Window Sticker Rule is a per se unfair, deceptive and/or unconscionable act or practice in violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.

c.

19. The claims of plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class, in that the claims of all members of the class. 20. There is no known conflict between plaintiff and other members of the class. 21. The named plaintiff is able to, and will, fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 22. Counsel for plaintiff is experienced and capable in litigation in the field of consumer Rights and Protection and has successfully represented claimants in other litigation of such a nature, against numerous car dealers and other suppliers, in class actions and individual cases.

62

23. This action is properly maintained as a class action in that the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interest of the other members not parties to the adjudications, or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. 24. This action is properly maintained as a class action in that the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the defendants, who are expected to oppose the class. 25. This action is also properly maintained as a class action inasmuch as the defendants herein, who are expected to oppose the class have acted on grounds which are applicable to the class, and by reason of such conduct have made appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding other relief with respect to the entire class, as sought in this action. 26. Furthermore, this action is properly maintained as a class action inasmuch as the questions of law and fact common to the class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other methods available for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. 27. The relief sought by all members of the class will be effective and appropriate for the entire class; all members of the class have a right to minimum statutory damages of $200.00 each or other relief which may be readily cmputed in each case or otherwise determined readily. 28. The identity of each individual member of each of the subclasses can be ascertained from the books and records maintained by defendants 29. Appearance of the named plaintiff will fairly insure the adequate representation of all members of the class and protect their interests. 30. Because many of the persons with whom the defendants have dealt are not aware of their rights against the defendants, or are not in a financial position to assert such rights readily, and because relegation of their claims to individual actions would result in an unreasonable multiplicity of suits and a corresponding burden on this and other courts, a class action is far superior to all other methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this controversy. WHEREFORE, judgment is demanded against each defendant as deemed proper and lawful by the Court, as set forth above and alternatively as follows: CLASS ACTION CLAIMS PRAYER FOR RELIEF 1. Plaintiff seeks a determination that this claims plead with class action allegations are appropriate for class action relief and deemed as such by an Order from this Court; 2. Relief deemed proper and legal in accord with the law, for each and every violation proven at trial; 3. Minimum statutory damages of $200.00 for each member of the class; 4. An injunction prohibiting any defendant from any future violations of the laws set forth above; 5. Expenses of suit and litigation; 6. Reasonable attorney fees and Costs; 7. Any other legal and equitable relief deemed necessary and just.

63

Plaintiff demands trial by Jury on all issues and claims.

_____________________________ [Attorney for Plaintiff]

64