DeclarationCal. Super. - 6th Dist.April 15, 2019STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC 184-0 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 4-30, LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JACOB CUTLER (SBN 264988) e-mail: jcutler@slpatt0mey.com ANH NGUYEN (SBN 281925) Email: anguyen@slpattorney.com STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (3 10) 929-4900 Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 Attorneys for PlaintiffLARA ROSE Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 1/9/2020 7:11 PM Reviewed By: Tunisia Turner Case #1 9CV346363 Envelope: 3868986 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA LARA ROSE, Plaintiff, FORD MOTOR COMPANY; KEARNY PEARSON FORD & KIA; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive Defendants. Case No.2 19CV346363 Hon. Mark Pierce Dept. 2 DECLARATION OF ANH NGUYEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION Date: January 23, 2020 Time: 9:00 am. Dept: 2 DECLARATION OF ANH NGUYEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC 184-0 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 4-30, LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF ANH NGUYEN I, Anh Nguyen, declare as follows: 1. I am over the age 0f 18 and not a party t0 the action. I am an attorney at law, duly admitted and licensed to practice before all courts of this State and I am an associate of STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC, 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430, Los Angeles, CA 90067. I am one 0f the attorneys for Plaintiff LARA ROSE (“Plaintiff’) in this action and my knowledge of the information and events described herein derives from a combination 0fmy personal knowledge and a careful review 0f the file, relevant court records and communications with other Plaintiffs counsel, and if called as a Witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Opposition t0 Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion t0 Stay Action. 3. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Toyota Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion t0 Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings [Dkt. Nos. 133 through 133-7], filed on October 10, 2011, in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in Kramer v. Toyota Motor Corp, 705 F.3d 1122, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013). 4. The arbitration clause contained in the Retail Installment Sale Contract (RISC) signed in California by Kramer Plaintiff Del Real applies t0 any claim “Which arises out 0f 0r relates t0 your credit application, purchase 0r condition of this vehicle, this contract 0r any resulting transaction or relationship (including any such relationship With third parties Who do not sign this contract).” See EX. 1 at 42 (EX. A to the Declaration 0f Michael L. Mallow [Dkt. N0. 133-3]). 5. The arbitration clause contained in the RISC signed in California by Kramer Plaintiff Choi applies to any claim “which arises out of 0r relates t0 your credit application, purchase 0r condition of this vehicle, this contract 0r any resulting transaction or relationship (including any such relationship with third parties Who do not sign this contract)” See EX. 1 at 45 (EX. B t0 the Declaration 0f Michael L. Mallow [Dkt. No. 133-4]). 6. In May of 2019, Defendants removed this action to the Northern District federal 1 DECLARATION OF ANH NGUYEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC 184-0 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 4-30, LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 court. Defendants’ Notice of Removal requested that the Northern District sever the dealership (again, Sunroad Auto LLC dba Kearny Pearson Ford & Kia) from the action t0 perfect diversity jurisdiction. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ Ford Motor Company and Sunroad Auto LLC dba Kearny Pearson Ford & Kia’s Notice ofRemoval [Dkt. N0. 1], filed on May 24, 2019 in the U.S. District Court, California Northern District, in Lara Rose v. Ford Motor Company, et al., Case N0. 3:19-cv-02897-JD. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed 0n January 9, 2020 in Los Angeles, California. MW Anh X. Nguyen 2 DECLARATION OF ANH NGUYEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION EXHIBIT 1 Case flzlo-ml-OZNZ-CJC-RNB Document 133 Filed 10/10/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:2127 1 MICHAEL L. MALLOW (SBN 188745) mmallow@ loeb.com 2 DENISE A. SMITH-MARS (SBN 215057) dmars@ loeb.com 3 RACHEL A. RAPPAPORT (SBN 268836) rrap a 0rt@loeb.com 4 Loe Loeb LLP 10100 Santa Monica B1Vd., Suite 2200 5 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 3 10.282.2000 6 Facsunile: 3 10.282.2200 7 Attome s for Defendants TOYO A MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., 8 INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR 9 CORPORATION 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 IN RE TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. Case N0.: MDL N0. 2172 13 HYBRID BRAKE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES and PRODUCTS Assigned t0 Hon. Cormac J. Carney 14 LIABILITY LITIGATION 1 5 TOYOTA DEFENDANTS’NOTICE OF MOTION AND 16 MOTION TO COMPEL This Document Relates t0: ARBITRATION AND STAY 17 8: lO-CV-00154-CJC-RNB PROCEEDINGS 2: lO-CV-Ol 154-CJC-RNB 18 2: 10-CV-01248-CJC-RNB 8: 10-CV-OOl73-CJC-RNB Date: December 5, 2011 19 8: 10-CV-01255-CJC-RNB Time: 1:30 p.m. Place: Courtroom 9B 20 21 22 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 23 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on December 5, 2011 at 1:30 pm, or as 24 soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Courtroom 9B 0f the Ronald Reagan 25 Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, located at 411 W. Fourth Street, Santa Ana, 26 California, Defendants Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and Toyota Motor 27 Corporation (collectively, “T0y0ta”) Will, and hereby d0, move this Court pursuant 28 A Limitle-dofgbfiittggrgmership LA2173 134'1 Inclugigrgpgrggigonal 212799-10020 Case flzlo-ml-OZNZ-CJC-RNB Document 133 Filed 10/10/11 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:2128 1 t0 the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and the arbitration clause 2 contained in the Purchase Agreements executed by Plaintiffs Alexsandra Del Real, 3 Michael Choi, Michael Scholten, and Lu Li for an Order compelling arbitration 0f 4 Plaintiffs Alexsandra Del Real, Michael Choi, Michael Scholten and Lu Li’s claims 5 against Toyota, and t0 stay this action as t0 Plaintiffs Alexsandra Del Real, Michael 6 Choi, Michael Scholten, and Lu Li pending the outcome 0f those arbitrations. 7 This Motion is based 0n this Notice 0f Motion and Motion t0 Compel 8 Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, the attached Memorandum 0f Points and 9 Authorities in support thereof, the concurrently filed Declaration 0f Michael L. 10 Mallow, and the exhibits attached thereto, all pleadings, papers, and records in this 11 action, and such further oral and written argument as may be presented by counsel 12 at 0r prior t0 the hearing 0n this motion. 13 This Motion is made following a conference of counsel pursuant t0 Local 14 Rule 7-3, which took place 0n September 20, 201 1. 15 Dated: October 10, 2011 LOEB & LOEB LLP 16 MICHAEL L. MALLOW DENISE A. SMITH-MARS 17 RACHEL A. RAPPAPORT 1 8 By: /s/ Michael L. Mallow 19 Michael L. Mallow Attome s for Defendants 20 TOYO A MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR 21 CORPORATION 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TOYOTA DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE 0F 2 MOTION AND MOTION T0 COMPEL t 'Loe_b g Loeb t 141421731341 ARBITRATION AND STAY ALPt.ELng*’p"fP”.“" 21279940020 PROCEEDINGS ACa:> OOVQk/IAUJN 10 11 12 l3 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Loeb 8. Loeb Limited Liahil'ny Pannership #12129 MICHAEL L. MALLOW (SBN 188745) mmallow loeb.com DENISE . SMITH-MARS (SBN 215057) dmars loeb.com RAC L A. RAPPAPORT (SBN 268836) rrap a ort@loeb.com Loe Loeb LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 3 10.282.2000 Facsunile: 3 10.282.2200 Attomqgs for Defendants TOYO A MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION e 8:10-mI-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 1 of 31 Page ID UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1N RE TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. HYBRID BRAKE MARKETING SALES PRACTICES and PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This Document Relates to: lO-CV-OOl 54-CJC-RNB -CV-01 154-CJC-RNB CV-Ol 248-CJC-RNB CV-OO l 73-CJC-RNB ~CV-01255-CJC-RNB 8: 2:10 2:10- 8:10- 8:10 Includcnq Prolessmnal Corporations LA2 I 76836.] 212799- 1 0020 Case No.1 MDL No. 2172 Assigned to Hon. Cormac J. Carney TOYOTA DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS Date: December 5, 201] Time: 1:30 pm. Place: Courtroom 9B Cas \OmflONUI-bUJNH NNNNNNNNNt-Iv-tv-tv-tv-n-tv-tv-tp-tp-t mummbwmv-‘OOOOQONUIAUJNv-‘O Loeb t Loeb lened Liammy Pannersmp Including Protesssonil C orporaflons e 8:10-mI-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 2 of 31 Page ID #12130 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................... 2 A. Plaintiffs Purchase Proposed Class Vehicles ........................................ 2 B. Each Plaintiff’s Purchase Agreement Contains a Very Broad Arbitration Provision ............................................................................ 3 III. GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................ 5 IV. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 7 A. Pursuant to the “Clear and Unrnistakable” Terms of the Purchase Agreements, the Arbi_tratc_)r.Must Decidqthe. Interppetation, Scope and Appllcablllty of the Arbltratlon PrOVISlons .............................................................................................. 7 B. All of Plaintiffs’ Claims Fall within the Scope _ofthe _ Arbitration Provision Contained in Each Plalntlff‘s Respectlve Purchase Agreement ............................................................................. 9 C. Though a Nonsignatory to the Purchase A reements, Tqyota Can nforce the Arbitration Provisions un er the Doctrme of Equitable Estoppel .............................................................................. 10 1. On Facts Analogous t0 those in thq Instant Case, Courts Have Applied the Dogtrinp of Equltable Estoppel and Have Compelled Arbltratlon .................................................... 11 2. Here, Plaintiffs’ Claims and Allegations “Presume the Existence 0f” and “Arise out ofand Relate Directly to” the Purchase Agreements .......................................................... 13 a. Claim for Violation ofthe CLRA .................................. 14 b. Claims for Violation of the UCL and FAL .................... 15 c. Claim for quach ofthe Implied Warranty of Merchantablllty .............................................................. 1 6 d. Claim for Breach 0f Contract ......................................... l7 e. All of Plaintiffs’ Claims Against Toyota Presume the Ex1stence of, Arise Out of, or Relate Directly to the Purchase Agreements ........................................... 17 3. Plaintiffs Have Raised Allegations of “Substantially Interdependent and Concerted Mlsconduct” by Toyota and Its Authorlzed Dealers ....................................................... 18 D. Toyota Has Npt Waived Its Ri%ht to C_ompel Arbitration of Plalntlffs’ Clalms Because No uch nght Existed Prior to the MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [N SUPPORT OF MOTION ”21763364 TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 21279940020 pROCFFDINGg \OOONOxmAmN.‘ NNNNNNNNNWHHHHr-Ip-tp-Ap-Ap-A WQQMAWNHOCWQQMbk-NNHO Loeb a Loeb . lehed Linbil'ny Partnership Including Prolesslonal Corporlllons Cafite 8:10-mI-02172-CJC-WfiBflfingfiwWW6” 3 of 31 Page ID Page United States Supreme Court’s Decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepczon .............................................................................. 19 1. Togpta Did Npt Have an Existing Right to Compel Ar ltratlon Prlor to Concepcion ............................................... 20 2. Toyo_ta Hag Not Acted Inconsistently with a Known Ex15t1ng nght to Compel Arbitratlon ...................................... 22 3. Plaintiffs Have Not Been Prejudiced by Any Supposed Inconsistent Acts ....................................................................... 23 V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 24 LA2 1 76836.] 2 I 2799- I 0020 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND ii AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS ACa‘ \OOOVONKIIAUJNI- NNNNNNNNN-flflv-Av-Av-Ar-t-Av-fi- OOQQM-bWNHOQOOHCNm-bWNHO Loob a Loob Limited Llamllly Pannership Including Pmlessional Corpomu’ons se 8:10-mI-02172-CJC-RNB Document_133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 4 of 31 Page ID TABLE#t2)JF3iUTH0RITIEs CASES Egg; Agnew v. Honda Motor C0., Ltd, No. CV 08-01433 DFH, 2009 WL 1813783 (SD. Ind. May 20, 2009) ..... passim Air Line Pilots Ass ’n, Int ’l v. Midwest Express Airlines, Ina, 279 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................ 8 Am. Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. App. 4th 1291 (1995) ............................................................................. l6 'Amisil Holdings Ltd. v. Clarium Capital Mgmt., 622 F. Supp. 2d 825 (ND. Cal. 2007) ........................................................ passim Anderson v. Pitney Bowes, Ina, No. C 04-4808 SBA, 2005 WL 1048700 at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2005) ........ 7, 8 Anunziato v. eMachines, Ina, 402 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (C.D. Cal. 2005) ........................................................ 15, 16 Aral v. EarthLink, Ina, 134 Cal. App. 4th 544 (2005) ............................................................................. 20 AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (201 1) .................................................... passim AT&T Tech, Inc. v. Commc ’n Workers 0fAm., 475 U.S. 643 (1986) ............................................................................... 6, 7, 9, 10 Britton v. C0-0p Banking Group, 916 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1990) ............................................................................ 23 Choctaw Generation L.P. v. Am. Home Assurance C0., 271 F.3d 403 (2d Cir. 2001) ............................................................................... 10 Clayworth v. Pfizer, Ina, 49 Cal. 4th 758 (2010) ........................................................................................ 15 Cohen v. DirecTV, Inc., 142 Cal. App. 4th 1442 (2006) ........................................................................... 20 Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv West Assoc, 553 F.3d 1277 (9th Cir. 2009) .............................................................................. 6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND iii AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION LA21768361 TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 21279940020 PROCEEDINGS Ca: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .16 Loob a Loeb 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Lirnneu Liabil'ny Pannarslup Including Protessional Corporalions e 8:lO-m|-02172-CJcmLfiwgggfiyRfimgWflnmfi of 31 Page ID Page Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (1985) ............................................................................................. 6 Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 162-63 (2005) .......................................................................... 20 Estrella v. Freedom Fin, N0. C 09-031565 SI, 2011 WL 2633643 (ND. Cal. July 5, 201 1) ......... 6, 22, 23 First Options ofChicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) ......................................................................................... 7, 8 Fisher v. A. G. Becker Paribas Inc. , 791 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1986) .................................................................. 20, 22, 23 Ford Motor C0. v. Ables, 207 Fed. App’x 443 (5th Cir. 2006) ................................................................... 11 Goodwin v. Ford Motor Credit C0., 970 F. Supp. 1007 (M.D. Ala. 1997) ............................................................ 11, 18 Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003) ............................................................................................. 7 Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency LL. C. , 210 F.3d 524 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1013 (2000) .................... 10 Hale v. Sharp Healthcare, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1373 (2010) ........................................................................... 17 Hall Street Assoc, LLC v. Mattel, Ina, 552 U.S. 576 (2008) ............................................................................................. 6 Hansen v. KPMG LLP, No. CV 04-10525 GLT, 2005 WL 6051705 (C.D. Cal. March 29, 2005)... 1 1, 18 Hawkins v. KPMG LLP, 423 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ............................................................. 11 Hughes Masonry C0. v. Greater Clark County Sch. Bldg. Corp, 659 F.2d 836 (7th Cir. 1981) ........................................................................ 10, 18 Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Ina, 12 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................. 6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND iv AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION LA21768361 TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 21279940020 PROCEEDINGS Ca. \DOOQQU‘IAUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNn-v-In-v-o-o-v-n-v-H WVQMAWNHOOWQQMAUJNHO Loob & Loob Limited Lnabilfly Pannership Including ProIessIonal Corporallons e 8:10-mI-02172-CJcmLfigmuéwfiimgfigfihgmfi of 31 Page ID Page J.J. Ryan & Sons, Inc. v. Rhone Poulenc Textile, S.A., 863 F.2d 315 (4th Cir. 1988) .............................................................................. 10 Klussman v. Cross Country Bank, 134 Cal. App. 4th 1283 (2005) ........................................................................... 20 Laster v. A T&TMobilily LLC, 584 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2009) .............................................................................. 21 Lawson v. Life 0fthe S. Ins. C0., 648 F.3d 1166(11th Cir.2011) .......................................................................... 10 Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. , 514 U.S. 52 (1995) ............................................................................................... 6 Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Ina, 473 U.S. 614 (1985) ............................................................................................. 7 Moses H. Cone Mem ’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. C0rp., 460 U.S. l (1983) ............................................................................................. 5, 6 MS Dealer Serv. Corp. v. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942 (l 1th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................... 10, l9 Mundi v. Union Sec. Life Ins. Ca, 555 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................. 6, 10, l8 New England Mech, Inc. v. Laborers Local Union 294, 909 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir. 1990) .............................................................................. 8 NS Holdings LLC Inc. v. Am. Int’l Group Ina, No. SACV 10-1 132 DOC, 2010 WL 4718895 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2010) ....... 24 Omstead v. Dell, Ina, 594 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 21 Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 498 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 21 Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l C0rp., 130 S.Ct. 1758, 176 L.Ed.2d 605 (2010) ........................................................... 21 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION LA2176836J TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 21279940020 PROCEEDINGS Ca. OOOQQMAUJNH NNNNNNNNNHH--_HHHH- WNONUIAWN_O\omflam-hmwflo Loob a Loeb Limited Lumlnty Partnership Including Professnonal Corporations e 8:lO-m|-02172-CJCfiQfiLfi@m§gfiRfiing@fifitlfiwfi 0f 31 Page ID Page United Broth. ofCarpenters and Joiners 0fAm., Local N0. 1780 v. Desert Palace, Inc., 94 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 8 United States v. Park Place Assocs., Ltd, 563 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2009) ........................................................................ 19, 23 Van Ness Townhouses v. Mar Indus. Corp, 862 F.2d 754 (9th Cir. 1988) .............................................................................. 19 Villegas v. US Bancorp, N0. C 10-1762 RS, 2011 WL 2679610 (ND. Cal. June 20, 201 l) ............. 21, 22 Volt Info. Sci. Inc. v. Bd. ofTrustees 0fthe Leland Stanford Jr. Um’v., 489 U.S. 468 (1989) ............................................................................................. 6 Wagner v. Stratton Oakmont, Ina, 83 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 6 STATUTES 9 U.S.C.A. § 2 (West 201 1) ....................................................................................... 5 9 U.S.C.A. § 3 (West 201 1) ................................................................................. 7, 24 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 .............................................................................. 15 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 .............................................................................. 13 Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(e) ................................................................. ' ........................ 14 Cal. Civ. Code § 1770 ............................................................................................. l4 Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a) .................................................. I ....................................... 1 4 Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(a) ................................................................................... 14, 15 Cal. Corn. Code § 2314 ..................................................................................... 13, 16 MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND vi AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION LAznssaeJ T0 COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 21279940020 PROCEEDINGS Case 8:10-mI-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 8 of 31 Page ID \OOONOUI-bl-HNH NNNNNNNNN----u-t---- OOQONM$MN~O©OOVQMAWN~O Loob I Loeb lened Lnablily Fannarshup Including Pralessional Corporations #12136 I. INTRODUCTION On April 27, 201 1, the United States Supreme Court decided AT&TMobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (201 1), overturned established California and Ninth Circuit law, and held that arbitration agreements containing class action waivers are enforceable by their terms because requiring the availability of classwide arbitration is inconsistent with the goals of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. at 1750. The import ofthe Supreme Court’s decision on Plaintiffs Del Real, Choi, Scholten and Li’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) claims against Defendants Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and Toyota Motor Corporation (collectively, “Toyota”) is clear: Plaintiffs must submit their claims to arbitration on an individual basis in accordance with the plain terms of Plaintiffs’ written agreements to purchase a Toyota hybrid vehicle. Prior to Concepcion, controlling authority in California and in this Circuit held that class action waivers found in arbitration provisions in certain consumer agreements are unconscionable and unenforceable. Here, Plaintiffs each signed a written purchase agreement with an arbitration clause and expressly waived their right to proceed as a class action representative and to arbitrate a class action. See Declaration of Michael L. Mallow, dated October 10, 2011 (“Mallow Decl.”), Exs. A-D (the “Purchase Agreements”).l There can be no doubt that the class action waiver contained in Plaintiffs’ Purchase Agreements would have been deemed unenforceable under California law prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Concepcion, and any prior attempt by Toyota to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims would have been futile. By the express terms of the contract that each Plaintiff executed for the purchase of their Toyota hybrid vehicle, claims and disputes such as Plaintiffs’ here ' The lan uage of Plaintiffs Scholten and Li’s Purchase Agreements is different from that of PFaintlffs Del Real and Choj’s Purchase Agreements. Differences in the language of the Purchase Agreements w111 be noted throughout the brlef. MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION LA2176336.1 TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 21279940020 PROCEEDINGS Ca: \OOONONMAUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHb-in-u-un-b-Ih-th-tv-d OONJQQJI-kwNHOKOOONQLh-bWNHO Loob l Loeb Lamlled Llab‘uity Partnersmp Including meessional Corporations 5e 8:10-mI-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 9 of 31 Page ID #12137 must be arbitrated. See Mallow Decl., Exs. A-D. Although Toyota is not a signatory to the Purchase Agreements executed by Plaintiffs, relevant case law in this Circuit and other circuits makes clear that Plaintiffs must nevertheless arbitrate their claims against Toyota. Because Plaintiffs’ claims make reference to and presume the existence of the Purchase Agreements, Plaintiffs cannot avoid the application ofthe arbitration provision to all of their claims, including those against nonsignatories. Moreover, because Plaintiffs have raised allegations of substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by signatories and nonsignatories to the Purchase Agreements, Plaintiffs must arbitrate their claims against Toyota. In light of Concepcion’s intervening change of law and the relevant authority permitting a nonsignatory to an agreement with an arbitration provision to compel arbitration of a signatory’s claims, Toyota hereby respectfillly moves herein to assert its rights under the FAA and compel individual arbitrations of Plaintiffs’ claims in accordance with the terms of Plaintiffs’ Purchase Agreements, and to stay this action pending those arbitrations. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Plaintiffs Purchase Proposed Class Vehicles On July 3 1, 2009, Plaintiff Choi executed a Retail Installment Sale Contract to purchase a 2010 Toyota Prius. See Mallow Decl., Ex. A. On June 12, 2009, Plaintiff Del Real entered into a Retail Installment Sale Contract to purchase a 2010 Toyota Prius. See id, Ex. B. On November 10, 2009, Plaintiff Scholten entered into a Purchase Agreement to purchase a 2010 Toyota Prius. See id., Ex. C. On January 17, 2010, Plaintiff Li entered into an agreement to purchase a 2010 Toyota Prius. See id., Ex. D (collectively, the “Purchase Agreements”). Plaintiffs’ Purchase Agreements set forth the terms and conditions pursuant to which Plaintiffs agreed to purchase their vehicles, including, among other things, the MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 2 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION LA21768361 TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 212799-10020 PROCEEDINGS Cas. omflamkwmn- NNNNNNNNNHt-AHr-It-AI-I-p-nr-tv-t OONQLA#WNHOCOONO\UI#WNHO Loeb a Loob an‘ned Liam‘ny Pannershlp Including Protesslonal Corporations 98:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Document133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 10 of31 PageID #:2138 total sale price. See generally id, Exs. A-D.2 The Purchase Agreements were signed by Plaintiffs and the Toyota dealerships from which Plaintiffs purchased their vehicles. See id., Exs. A at 2; B at 1; C at 1; D at 1. Plaintiffs Del Real and Choi signed the Purchase Agreements subject to the following acknowledgement, which appeared in bold and all capital letters, just above Plaintiffs’ signaturesz3 YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT. YOU CONFIRM THAT BEFORE YOU SIGNED THIS CONTRACT, WE GAVE IT TO YOU, AND YOU WERE FREE T0 TAKE IT AND REVIEW IT. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ BOTH SIDES OF THIS CONTRACT, INCLUDING THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE ON THE REVERSE SIDE, BEFORE SIGNING BELOW. YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU RECEIVED A COMPLETELY FILLED-IN COPY WHEN YOU SIGNED IT. See id., Exs. A at 2; B at 1 (bold and capitalization in original). B. Each Plaintiff’s Purchase Agreement Contains a Very Broad Arbitration Provision Plaintiffs’ Purchase Agreements contain very broad arbitration provisions. Importantly, Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate claims and disputes such as those in the instant case.4 In pertinent part, Plaintiffs Del Real and Choi’s Purchase Agreements state the following: Any claim or dispute, whether in contract, tort, s_ta_tute or otherwise Sincludin the scope of this clause, and the arbitrablhty of the claim or lspute), efiween you and us or our employees, agents, successors or aSSIgns whlch arise out of or relate to your credlt apFllcatlon, purchase or cond’ition of this vehicle, this contract 0r any resu ting transaction 0r relationshi (includin any such relatlonship with third arties who do not si n t is contract .shall, at your or our election, e resolved by neutra , binding arbitratlon and not by a court action. 2 It Ishould be noted that the Purchase A reements are in fact single-page, double-s1ded doguments. However, coples o the Purchase Agreements were produced as multl-page documents. 3 Plaintiff Scholten and Li"s Pyrchase Agreements glso c_ontain prominent acknowledgements of thg .arbltratlon prov1sgon _conta1ned m the Purchase égrtéemelntsEJuslg ab(ive Plalntlff Scholten and L1’s s1gnatures. See Mallow Decl., x. at ; x. at . 4 Toyota recognizes that it is not a signatory to the Purchase Agreements. However, for t_he reason_s set forth in Section IV, infia, Toyota may nevertheless compel arbltratlon of Plalntiffs’ clalms. MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND 3 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION LAznassm T0 COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 21279940020 PROCEEDINGS Cas. ©WQONKJ‘IQUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNt-tn-tn-tn-ar-dr-np-AHHH OOQQK/I-PWNHOOOONOKUIQWNHO Loab l Loeb Limited Lnabilny Pannarsmp Includmg Professnonnl Corporations e 8:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 11 of 31 Page ID #:2139 See Mallow Decl., Exs. A at 4; B at 2. Similarly, Plaintiff Scholten’s Purchase Agreement provides, in relevant part: If either you or we elect, any claims 0r disputes ayising out of this transaction, or relating to it, will be determineld by blndjng arbitration and not by court actlon. This includes all c1a1ms_anq1 d1sputes arlsmg out of or relating to: the vehicle, your credit ap llcatlon, this contract, the safe or financing 0f the vehicle, and any col ection activities. This Arbitration Clause applies to any clalms or dis utes between you and anyone to whom we transfer this contract whet er or not the si n this contract. . . . This Arbitration Clause appfies, regardless 0fw et er the claims 0r disputes_ arise 11} contract, tort, st_atute or qtherwise. It also afplles t9 ar_1y clalrn 0r dlspute about the Interprepatlon a_nd sc0pe of t ls Arbltratlon Clause. It also agplles to any clalm or dlspute about whether a claim or dispute should e determined by arbitration. See z'd., Ex. C at 2. Plaintiff Li’s Purchase Agreement provides, in pertinent part: Byyer(s) (also referred to gs “You”) and De_aler_ agree. thafi if any Dlspute arlses, the Dlspute w111 be resolved by blndlng arbltratlon . . . . A Disgute is any question as to whether somqthing must be mediated and t e terms and procedurgs of the medlation, as well as any allegations concerping a Violatlpn' of a sale state or federal statute that may be the subject of. medlatlon, any monetary clalm, whether contract, tort, or other, arlsmg from the negotlatlon of and terms of the Buyer’s Order, service contract 0r msurance product[.] See 1'd., Ex. D at 1-2. Plaintiffs further agreed that any claim or dispute would be arbitrated on an individual basis as opposed to a class basis, that federal law, not state law, governs any arbitration, and that neither party waives the right to arbitrate by using self-help remedies or filing suit. See id, Exs. A-D. Plaintiffs Del Real and Choi’s Purchase Agreements state: 2. IF A DISPUTE IS ARBITRATED, YOU WILL GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE AS A CLASS REPRESENTATIVE OR CLASS MEMBER ON ANY CLASS CLAIM YOU MAY HAVE AGAINST US INCLUDING ANY RIGHT TO CLASS ARBITRATION OR ANY CONSOLIDATION OF INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATIONS. Any plaim opdispute is to be arbitratgd by a single arbitratoy on an lpdlwdual baSIS and not as_a class actlon. You expressly walye any rlght you. may have. to arbltrate a class actlon. . . . Any arbltratlon undgr t_hls Arbltratlon Clause shall be governed by the Federal Arbltratlon Act (9 U.S.C. § l et se .) and not by any state law concerning arbitration. . . . You an we retain the right to seek MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND 4 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION LA2I76836‘1 T0 COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 21279940020 PROCEEDINGS Cass Oxoooqomgwm.‘ NNNNNNNNNn-r-r-HH-‘p-‘p-‘y-ay-t OONQm-PWNHOQOONQM-bwww Loob a Loob Lumiled Liabilny Partnership Including Praisssional Corporations e 8:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 12 of 31 Page ID #:2140 remedies in small claims court for _dispptes or claims within that court’s Jurlsdlcglon, unless suchIactlon ls transferred, remoyed or ap .eale t0 a dlfferent court. Negther you. nor vye walve the rlght to ar ltrate by usm self-help remedles or fillng su1t. . . . If any part 9f this Arbitration lause, other than waivers 0f class actlon rights, 1s deemed or found to be unenforceable for any rqasonz the remainder shall remain enforceable. If a waiver of class actlon rlghts is deemed or found to be unenforceable for any reason in a case 1n. which class actlon alle%ations have been made, the remalnder of thls arbitration clause shal be unenforceable. See id, Exs. A at 4; B at 2. Likewise, Plaintiff Scholten’s Purchase Agreement provides the following: Any claim or dispute is to be arbitrated by a sjngle arbitrator who will arbltrate onl you; own cla_ims and not the clalms of a class 0f persqns. You express_y walve an r1 ht you may_ have to arbltyate a class actlon. . . . Any arbltratlon un ert ls Arbltratlon Clause Wlll be ovemed by the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U..S.C. § 1 et. seq.) and pot y any state law_ concernlng arbltratlon. Neljcher yoq nor yve walve the rlght t0 arbltrate by usmg self-help remedles or filmg su1t. See id, Ex. C at 2. Finally, in relevant part, PlaintiffLi’s Purchase Agreement states: You a ree that class-wide arbitration of a DiISDPute ma not be underta en and that. no claim arising from. a lspute ( pwn or unknown) may be adjudicated 1n or be the ba51s for compensatlon as a result of an class action proceeding. . . . YQu and Dealer retain any right to sel -help remedies, such as repossessmn and to seek remedies in the State District Court 0f Ma land f0; disputes or claims within that court’s jurlsdgction, unless sup action 1§ trqnsferrer [519],.removed or appealed to a dlfferent court w1thout first 1nst1tutmg medlatlon. See id, D at 1-2. III. GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARD The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides that “[a] written provision in any . . . contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C.A. § 2 (West 201 1). “Section 2 is a congressional declaration of a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, notwithstanding any state substantive or procedural policies to the contrary.” Moses MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND 5 AUTHORITIES 1N SUPPORT 0F MOTION LA2176836‘I TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 21279940020 PROCEEDINGS Case 8:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 13 of 31 Page ID \OmflQLn-bLNNH NNNNNNNNNp-AHHHflflHHHp-t OONQMQWNHoooo‘QQUIAWNHO Loeb l Loob aniled Liamlny Palmershlp Including Professional Ca(poralions #12141 H. Cone Mem ’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp, 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983). Consequently, the FAA creates a body of federal substantive law governing arbitrability, “applicable t0 any arbitration agreement within the coverage of the Act.” Id. This strong federal policy favoring arbitration for dispute resolution “requires a liberal reading of arbitration agreefnents.” Id. at 22 n.27. “[A]ny doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Id. at 24-25; see also Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52, 62 (1995) (quoting Volt Info. Sci. Inc. v. Bd. ofTrustees 0fthe Leland Stanford Jr. Univ, 489 U.S. 468, 475-76 (1989)); Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Ina, 12 F.3d 908, 914 (9th Cir. 1993); Mundz' v. Union Sec. Life Ins. C0., 555 F.3d 1042, 1044 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Wagner v. Stratton Oakmont, Ina, 83 F.3d 1046, 1049 (9th Cir. 1996)). Accordingly, “[flederal courts are required to rigorously enforce an agreement t0 arbitrate,” Estrella v. Freedom Fin, No. C 09-03 1565 SI, 2011 WL 2633643, at *3 (ND. Cal. July 5, 201 1) (citing Hall Street Assoc, LLC v. Mattel, Ina, 552 U.S. 576, 581 (2008)), and must do so “according to [the agreement’s] terms.” Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. at 1748. In addition, the FAA mandates that district courts direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues pursuant to a signed arbitration agreement. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218 (1985) (“the [FAA] leaves no place for the exercise of discretion by a district court, but instead mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed”) (emphasis in original). An order to arbitrate should not be denied “unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.” Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv West Assoc, 553 F.3d 1277, 1284 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting AT&T Tech, Inc. v. Commc ’n Workers 0fAm., 475 U.S. 643, 650 (1986)). “Doubts should be resolved in favor of coverage.” Id. Consequently, as with any MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 6 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION LA2176836J T0 COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 2|2799-10020 PROCEEDINGS Ca. \OWQQMAWNF- NNNNNNNNNu-t-tw-nHHHp-p-H OOVQUIAUJN-OOOONJQMAWN-‘O Loch 5 Loeh Limlled Liability Partnership Including Professmnal ‘e 8:10-mI-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 14 of 31 Page IDI Comormions #12142 other contract, although courts often look to the parties’ intentions, “those intentions are generously construed as to issues of arbitrability.” Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626 (1985). Furthermore, the FAA provides that a court must stay judicial proceedings, pending the outcome of the arbitration itself: If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United Stqtgs u on an issu_e referable to arbitratlon under an a reer_nent in wrltlng or suc arbltratlon, the court . . . shall . . . stayt e trlal ofthe action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms ofthe agreement . . . . 9 U.S.C.A. § 3 (West 201 1). In light ofthese principles, this Court should compel Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against Toyota and stay this action as to Plaintiffs Del Real, Choi, Scholten, and Li pending the outcome of such arbitrations. See id. IV. ARGUMENT For the reasons set forth below, Toyota’s motion to compel arbitration and stay these proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration should be granted. A. Pursuant t0 the “Clear and Unmistakable” Terms of the Purchase Agreements, the Arbitrator Must Decide the Interpretation, Scope and Applicability of the Arbitration Provisions In certain circumstances, courts assume that the parties to a contract intend for a court to decide such threshold matters as “whether the parties have a valid arbitration agreement at all or whether a concededly binding arbitration clause applies to a certain type of controversy.” Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444, 452 (2003). However, that assumption is rebutted where, as here, “the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise” and agree to let the arbitrator decide such issues. AT&T Tech, Ina, 475 U.S. at 649; First Options ofChz'cago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 5 14 U.S. 938, 943 (1995); Anderson v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., No. C 04-4808 SBA, 2005 WL 1048700 at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2005) (“ifthe parties ‘clearly and unmistakably’ empowered an arbitrator to determine arbitrability, the [c]ourt must compel arbitration ofthe gateway issues as well”). MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 7 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION LA2176836.I TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 21279940020 PROCEEDINGS Cas \OWQQMAWNb-t WQQMAWNHOOOOQGMAMNr-O Laab A Loeb erlted Liabilny Pannership Includmn Professmnal Corporalmns e 8:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Documentthllgfiié Filed 10/10/11 Page 15 of 31 Page ID Accordingly, “the question ‘who has the primary power to decide arbitrability’ turns upon what the parties agreed about that matter.” First Options 0f Chicago, Inc., 514 U.S. at 943 (emphasis in original); Anderson, 2005 WL 1048700 at *2 (“Parties are free . . . to contract around th[e] default rule [that courts decide the question of arbitrability] by assigning the determination of arbitrability to an arbitrator.”) (internal citations omitted). Where the parties have agreed to vest the arbitrator with authority to decide such threshold issues, “the courts will be divested of their authority and an arbitrator will decide in the first instance whether a dispute is arbitrable.” United Broth. ofCarpenters and Joiners 0fAm., Local N0. I 780 v. Desert Palace, Ina, 94 F.3d 1308, 13 10 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing New England Mech, Inc. v. Laborers Local Union 294, 909 F.2d 1339, 1345 (9th Cir. 1990)). Here, the language in the Purchase Agreement could not be more plain: the parties “clearly and unmistakably” agreed that certain threshold questions, including the interpretation and scope of the arbitration clause and the issue of arbitrability would be decided by the arbitrator. See Mallow Decl., Exs. A at 4; B at 2 (“[a]ny claim or dispute, whether in contract, tort, statute or otherwise (including the interpretation and scope 0fthz's clause, and the arbitrability 0fthe claim 0r dispute) . . . shall, at your or our election, be resolved by neutral, binding arbitration and not by a court action.”) (emphasis added); Ex. C at 2 (“This Arbitration Clause applies . . . t0 any claim 0r dispute about the interpretation and scope 0fthz's Arbitration Clause [and] t0 any claim 0r dispute about whether a claim 0r dispute should be determined by arbitration”) (emphasis added); Ex. D at 2 (“if any Dispute arises, the Dispute will be resolved by binding arbitration[.] . . . A Dispute is any question as t0 whether something must be mediated”) (emphasis added). Thus, such threshold questions are for the arbitrator to resolve. See Air Line Pilots Ass ’n, Int ’l v. Midwest Express Airlines, Ina, 279 F.3d 553, 556 (7th Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen an arbitration clause is so broadly worded that it encompasses disputes over the scope or validity of the contract in which it is embedded, issues of the contract’s scope or MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 8 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION LA2:76836.1 TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 212799-10020 PROCEEDINGa Ca‘s \DWQQU‘AWNH NNNNNNNNN-t-t-t-AHHr-‘n-HH OOQQM$WN~O©WQQUIAWNHO Loch L Loob Limiled Liau'lily Partnership Including Professional Corpomions e 8:10-mI-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 16 of 31 Page ID #22144 validity are for the arbitrators.”). Moreover, the presumption of arbitrability “is particularly applicable where the clause is . . . broad,” and in such cases, “‘[i]n the absence of any express provision excluding a particular grievance from arbitration, . . . only the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration can prevail.’” AT&T Tech, Ina, 475 U.S. at 650 (citations omitted). Pursuant to the plain terms of the arbitration provision, the arbitrator, not the Court, is vested with the authority to decide Plaintiffs’ claims. As demonstrated below, however, even if the Court were to conclude that any of these threshold questions should be properly decided by the Court instead of the arbitrator, the terms of the arbitration provisions and relevant legal authority overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Toyota can indeed enforce the arbitration provision and that all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Toyota are subject to arbitration. B. All of Plaintiffs’ Claims Fall within the Scope 0f the Arbitration Provision Contained in Each Plaintiff’s Respective Purchase Agreement Toyota believes that an arbitrator will find that Plaintiffs’ claims fall within the scope of the arbitration provisions contained in Plaintiffs’ Purchase Agreements. In executing their Purchase Agreements, Plaintiffs unequivocally agreed to arbitrate not only the interpretation and scope of the arbitration provision and the question of whether Plaintiffs’ claims are arbitrable, but also other matters, including any claims or disputes that “arise out of or relate to [the] . . . purchase or condition of th[e] vehicle, this contract or any resulting transaction or relationship (including any such relationship with third parties who do not sign this contract),” see Mallow Decl., Exs. A, at 4; B, at 2 (Plaintiff Del Real and Choi’s Purchase Agreements); “any claims or disputes arising out of this transaction, or relating to it, . . . includ[ing] all claims and disputes arising out of, or relating to: the vehicle, [the] credit application, this contract, the sale or financing ofthe vehicle,” see id., Ex. C at 2 (Plaintiff Scholten’s Purchase Agreement); and “any monetary claim, whether contract, tort, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 9 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION LA2]76836.I TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 2l2799-10020 PROCEEDINGS Cafle 8:10-mI-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 17 of 31 Page ID \OWflQU‘n-bUJNp-i NNNNNNNNNr-ir-AHHHHHr-HHH OONQKIIAUJN-‘OOWNQMAUJNu-Io Loob G Loab Limned Liabilny Pannersnip Including Pmlessianal Corporauons #12145 or other, arising from the negotiation of and terms 0f the Buyer’s Order,” see id, Ex. D at 2 (Plaintiff Li’s Purchase Agreement). Because the actual purchase of a vehicle is a necessary element of each of Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs must concede that their claims necessarily relate to the vehicle or the purchase, sale, or negotiation of the vehicle, and “arise out of” and/or “relate to” Plaintiffs’ Purchase Agreements. Moreover, because Plaintiffs Del Real and Choi maintain that the purchase of a Toyota vehicle created a relationship between Toyota and themselves, it is clear that Plaintiffs’ claims “relate to any resulting transaction or relationship (including any such relationship with third parties who do not sign this contract).” Thus, all of Plaintiffs’ claims fall within the scope of the arbitration provisions contained in Plaintiffs’ respective Purchase Agreements, and Plaintiffs must arbitrate their claims against Toyota. C. Though a Nonsignatory to the Purchase Agreements, Toyota Can Enforce the Arbitration Provisions under the Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel Consistent with the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that equitable estoppel principles allow a nonsignatory, to compel arbitration of a signatory’s claims. See Choctaw Generation L.P. v. Am. Home Assurance C0., 271 F.3d 403, 406-407 (2d Cir. 2001); JJ Ryan & Sons, Inc. v. Rhone Poulenc Textile, S.A., 863 F.2d 315, 320-21 (4th Cir. 1988); Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency L.L.C., 210 F.3d 524, 528 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1013 (2000); Hughes Masonry C0. v. Greater Clark County Sch. Bldg. Corp, 659 F.2d 836, 839-41 (7th Cir. 1981); Mundi, 555 F.3d at 1046-47; MS Dealer Serv. Corp. v. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942, 947-48 (1 1th Cir. 1999), abrogated in part 0n other grounds by Lawson v. Life 0fthe S. Ins. C0., 648 F.3d 1166 (l 1th Cir. 201 1). District courts in the Ninth Circuit have also recognized that equitable estoppel applies t0 permit a nonsignatory to compel arbitration in two distinct circumstances, both ofwhich apply here: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 10 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION LA2176336.I TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 21279910020 PROCEEDINGS Cas \DOOQOLh-hLoJNn-t NNNNNNNNNb-tr-‘r-‘b-tp-IHHHHH WNQMAUJNHOWW‘QQM-PWNHO Loch t Loch Llrmled Lllulfly Plflnorship Including Professional Corpormians a 8:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 18 of 31 Page ID #22146 First, equitable . elstoppel appli_es when the signatory to a written agyeement contalnlng an arblgrathn clau_se must 1:er on the terms 0f the wrltten agreement 1_n assertlng Its clalmg agamst thg nons1gnatory. When each of a Slgnato ’s cl.a1ms agalnst a ponSIgnatory makes reference to oppresumes t e eXIStence of the yvrltten agreement. the signatory’s cla1ms_ arise put of and relate dlrectly to the wrltten agreement, and arbltratlon ls approprlate. Second, application of equitable. _estoppel is _wa1;ranted when 'the 81%natqry to the contract Icontalnlng an arbltratlon clau§e ralses a atlons of substantlally Interdependent and concerted mlsconductle by goth the nonsignatory and one or more of the signatories to the contract. Amisil Holdings Ltd. v. Clarium Capital Mgmt, 622 F. Supp. 2d 825, 840 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (concluding that nonsignatory may compel arbitration of signatory’s claims under estoppel principles because each of signatory’s claims were related to agreement with arbitration provision in a way that either refers to or presumes the existence of the agreement) (quoting Hawkins v. KPMG LLP, 423 F. Supp. 2d 1038, 1050 (N.D. Cal. 2006)); Hansen v. KPMG LLP, No. CV 04-10525 GLT, 2005 WL 6051705, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. March 29, 2005) (holding that equitable estoppel permits nonsignatories to compel arbitration because signatory-plaintiff plead interdependent and concerted misconduct by nonsignatories and signatories to the contract). If either of these two circumstances exist, arbitration should be compelled per the request of the nonsignatory. l. 0n Facts Analogous to those in the Instant Case, Courts Have Applied the Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel and Have Compelled Arbitration Federal courts addressing this precise question have held that a nonsignatory automobile manufacturer, such as Toyota, is entitled to enforce the arbitration clause in a purchase agreement under principles of equitable estoppel. See, e.g, Agnew v. Honda Motor C0., Ltd, No. CV 08-01433 DFH, 2009 WL 1813783, at *5 (S.D. Ind. May 20, 2009); Ford Motor C0. v. Ables, 207 Fed. App’x 443, 448 (5th Cir. 2006); Goodwin v. Ford Motor Credit Ca, 970 F. Supp. 1007, 1018 (M.D. Ala. 1997) Agnew v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. is especially instructive, as it is directly on point. In Agnew, the plaintiff purported to represent a putative class ofHonda MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 1 1 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION LA2176836.I TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 2 12799-10020 PROCEEDINGfi Case 8:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 19 0f 31 Page ID \DOO\JOXKII#UJNt-‘ NNNNNNNNN-----v-Av-Ap-lp-‘p-‘ mfiam¢mN~o©mflom¥WNHo Loob a Loob Lumiled mellty Pannelshin Including Professnonal Corpomhons #12147 vehicle owners, which were advertised and marketed as being “XM Ready.” Agnew, 2009 WL 18 13783, at * 1. The plaintiff sued Honda, XM Satellite Radio, and the plaintiff’s car dealer, Penske, alleging breach of express and implied warranties, Violation of a state deceptive consumer sales statute, unjust enrichment, fraud, and constructive fraud, in that defendants misrepresented to the class that the vehicles were “XM Ready,” when in fact, additional equipment, labor, and expenses were required for the XM radio to operate. Id. The purchase agreement between the plaintiffand Penske included a very broad arbitration clause that “cover[ed] all claims arising from or relating t0 the agreement or the relationships that result from the agreement” and expressly required that any such arbitration be brought as an individual case and not as a class action.5 Id. Like Toyota in the instant case, Honda and XM were not parties to the purchase agreement. Id. Soon after defendants removed the case to federal court, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claims against Penske. Id. at *2. Honda, however, moved to compel arbitration and argued that plaintiffwas estopped from denying arbitration of her claims against Honda and XM because the plaintiff’s The arbitration clause stated in pertinent part: All disputes, claims or controversies arisin from or relating to this Contract or the relationships which result {om this Contract, or the valldlty of this arbltratlon clause or the entlre Contract, shall, at the elegtior; of either party, be resolved by binding arbityatlop. . . . This arbltratlon agreement ls made pursuant to a transactlon 1n interstate commerce, and shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act at 9 U.S.C. Sgctlon l, et sefi Judgment gpqn the award rendered may be entered 1n any court av1ng Jurlsdlctlon. The partles agree and understand that hey choose arbltration instead of liti ation to resolve dis utes . . . . The parties a ree and understand that g1 dis utes arising u_n .er case law, statutory aw, and all othey laws Inclu mg, but not 11m1ted to, all cpntract, tort, and property dlsgutes, will be subject t0 binding larbltratlon in accordance'wyth this ontract. Any claim or dlspute ls to be arbltrated on_ an 1nd1yidual baSIS, and not as g class actlon; and, you expregsly walve any r1 ht you may have to arbltrate a class actlon. The partles agree and un erstand that the arbitrator shall have all owers frovided by the law and this Contract. These powers shall inc ude al legal and e uitable remedles .ipcludjng, but not 11mlted t0, money damages, dec aratory rellef, and, m_yunctlve rellef. Agnew, 2009 WL 1813783, at *1. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 12 AUTHORITIES [N SUPPORT OF MOTION LA2176836.1 TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 21279940020 PROCEEDINGS Ca:3 \OOO\JC\U‘I-bUJI\)u-n NNNNNNNNNHHHr-IHH---p-n OOQQMAUJNWOKDWNOKIIbUJNHO Loch & Loeb Lumlted Llaumy Fannership Including Prolessmnsl Corporations e 8:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 20 of 31 Page ID #12148 claims against them depended on the purchase agreement, which included the arbitration clause. Id. The district court held that Honda, a nonsignatory to the contract with the arbitration provision, could compel arbitration under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, noting that the plaintiff could not claim the benefits of the contract yet simultaneously repudiate the arbitration clause in it. Id. at *4-5. It did not matter that the counterparty to the purchase agreement containing the arbitration clause, Penske, was not a party to the lawsuit. Id. at *5. Rather, because the plaintiff’s purchase of the vehicle was essential to all of her claims and the plaintiff’s claims against Honda and XM arose under the purchase agreement, Honda, a nonsignatory, could compel the plaintiff to arbitrate her claims individually. Id. at *4. Accordingly, the court granted Honda’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings. Id. at *5. 2. Here, Plaintiffs’ Claims and Allegations “Presume the Existence of” and “Arise out 0f and Relate Directly to” the Purchase Agreements A plaintiff is estopped from avoiding arbitration compelled by a nonsignatory when, as here, the plaintiff’s allegations and claims against the nonsignatory “make reference to,” “presume the existence of,” “arise out of,” or “relate directly to” an agreement containing an arbitration provision. See Amisil, 622 F. Supp. 2d at 840. In this case, all of Plaintiffs’ claims make reference to and presume the existence of the Purchase Agreements. In the First Amended Class Action Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiffs assert claims under: (1) the CLRA (FAC, 1W 87-108); (2) the UCL (id, 1H] 109-1 l7); (3) Califomia’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq. (id, 1H] 118-125); (4) the implied warranty of merchantability, Cal. Com. Code § 23 14 (id, 1N 126-132); and (5) common law breach of contract (id, 1H] 133-136). All of Plaintiffs’ claims necessarily depend upon the Purchase Agreements entered into by Plaintiffs and the dealerships from which Plaintiffs purchased their MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 13 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION LA21768361 TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 21279940020 PROCEEDINGS Cafle 8:10-mI-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 21 of 31 Page ID \OOOQQUI#UJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-nr-nr-nr-tr-tr-Ip-tr-nn-Ir-t OONQLIIAUJNr-‘OOWQQMAUJNv-‘O Loob 5 Loch Lirnfled Lnabilfly Pannership Including Professional Corporations #12149 vehicles because the purchase of a Toyota vehicle is a critical element of each of Plaintiffs’ claims.6 a. Claim for Violation of the CLRA In pertinent part, the CLRA prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices . . . in a transaction” for the sale or lease of goods to any consumer. Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a). The CLRA prescribes a list of “unfair or deceptive acts,” including “[r]epresenting that goods [ ] have . . . benefits or quantities which they do not have,” “[r]epresenting that goods [ ] are of a particular standard, quality or grade” if they are not,” and “representing that the subject of a transaction has been supplied in accordance with a previous representation when it has not.” Id. § 1770(a)(5), (7), (16). The CLRA further provides that “[a]ny consumer who suffers any damage as a result of the use or employment by any person of a method, act, or practice declared to be unlawful by Section 1770 may bring an action against that person to recover or obtain,” among other things, actual damages, an order enjoining the prohibited methods, acts, or practices, or restitution of property. Id. § 1780(a). Recognizing that the CLRA requires a party to plead and prove a “transaction“ for the sale or lease of goods and damages suffered, Plaintiffs allege that Toyota violated the CLRA by, among other things, “representing that a transaction involving the [Recall] Vehicles confers or involves rights, remedies, and obligations which it does not” and “representing that the subject of a transaction involving the [Recall] Vehicles has been supplied in accordance with a previous representation when it has not.” FAC, 11 94. In addition, Plaintiffs assert that they 6 . .Although Toyota acknowledges tha; Plaintiffs’ claims are dependent upon P]a1r_1t;ffs haVIr} .purchased a Tquta hybpld vehicle, Toyota does not concede the v1ab111ty or vall 1ty of any of Plalntlffs’ clalms. 7 The CLRA defines “transaction” as “an agreement between a consumer _and any other erson, whether or not the agreement ls a contract enforceable by actlon, and inclu es the making of, and the performance pursuant to, that agreement.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(e). MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND 1 4 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION LA2176836.I To COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 212799-10020 PROCEEDINGS nCa; \DWQQLh-AWNp-t NNNNNNNNNwwer-lp-HHHH mfiQm¥WNHO©OONQM#WN’-‘o Loob a Loob lened Llanlfly Pannarsrup Including ?lolesslonnl Corporations De 8:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 22 of 31 Page ID #22150 relied on Toyota’s alleged misrepresentations and omissions and that their “decision to purchase [their] Prius was influenced by [the alleged misrepresentations].” Id., 1H] 2, 18, 20-22, 99-100. As a result, Plaintiffs allege that they would not have purchased or leased the Recall vehicles and that they overpaid for their vehicles or made lease payments that were too high. Id., 1H] 14, 18, 20-22, 86, 101; see also Plfs.’ Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. t0 Dismiss [Docket No. 123], at 8 (“Plaintiffs were induced to purchase and pay inflated prices for their vehicles due to Toyota’s misrepresentations and omissions.”). It is undisputed that the instrument through which Plaintiffs purchased Toyota’s “goods,” (z'.e., Toyota hybrid vehicles) is the Purchase Agreement. See generally Mallow Decl., Exs. A-D. Thus, Plaintiffs’ CLRA claim “presumes the existence of” the Purchase Agreements. Because the purchase of a Toyota vehicle, as embodied in the Purchase Agreements, is the “transaction” upon which Plaintiffs’ CLRA claim is based, Plaintiffs must arbitrate their CLRA claim with Toyota. See Amisz‘l, 622 F. Supp. 2d at 840-41. b. Claims for Violation of the UCL and FAL Likewise, Plaintiffs cannot avoid arbitration of their claims under the UCL and FAL. First, to the extent that Plaintiffs’ UCL claim is premised on the finding of a violation of the CLRA, Plaintiffs must arbitrate their UCL claim with Toyota. Second, it i‘s plain that Plaintiffs’ claims under the UCL and FAL “presume the existence of” and “directly relate to” Plaintiffs’ Purchase Agreements. In order to bring a claim under the UCL and FAL, a plaintiff must have “suffered injury in fact and [have] lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204; Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., 49 Cal. 4th 758, 788 (2010); Anunziato v. eMachines, Inc., 402 F. Supp. 2d 1133, 1136 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Here, Plaintiffs allege that they “have suffered an injury in fact, including the loss of money or property, as a result of Defendants’ unfair, unlawful and/or deceptive practices.” FAC, 1m 1 15, 122. In addition, Plaintiffs assert that “in purchasing or MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 15 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION LA2176836.I TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 21279940020 PROCEEDINGS Ca. oooqam&wNv-t NNNNNNNNNH-nHflr-t-Ap-AHp-Ap-A WNONMLWNHCQOO‘JQKllkWNHC Loob l Loch Limned Luauluy Fannersru'p Incluqu Prulesswnil Corpotations Je 8:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 23 of 31 Page ID #:2151 leasing their vehicles, Plaintiffs relied on Defendants’ misrepresentations and/or omissions with respect to the safety of the [Recall] Vehicles [and h]ad Plaintiffs and Class members known [about the alleged brake issue], they would not have purchased or leased their [Recall] Vehicles and/or paid as much for these vehicles.” Id; see also id., 1H l8, 20-22. As the FAC makes clear, Plaintiffs’ purchase of their Toyota hybrid vehicles is a critical element of their UCL and FAL claims - Plaintiffs purported “injury in fact” depends on their purchase of a Toyota hybrid vehicle. Consequently, Plaintiffs’ UCL and FAL claims “presume the existence of” and “relate directly to” Plaintiffs’ Purchase Agreements and Plaintiffs must arbitrate their UCL and FAL claims against Toyota. c. Claim for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability California Commercial Code Section 23 14 provides that “[u]nless excluded or modified . . . a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind.” Cal. Com. Code § 2314. That is, the implied warranty of merchantability arises by operation of law upon the sale of a good to a consumer. See Am. Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. App. 4th 1291, 1295 (1995). Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under California Commercial Code Section 23 14 necessarily depends upon the sale of a Toyota vehicle to Plaintiffs. See, e.g., FAC, 1] 128 (“A warranty that the [Recall] Vehicles were in merchantable condition was implied by law in the instant transactions[.]”); id, 1] 131 (“Plaintiffs and Class members “have had sufficient direct dealings with either Defendants or their agents (dealerships/lessors) to establish privity ofcontract”); id, 1W 129, 132 (“The [Recall] vehicles, when sold and at all times thereafter, were not in merchantable condition and are not fit for the ordinary purpose for which cares are used,” and [a]s a direct and proximate result . . . Plaintiffs and the Class have been damaged”). Thus, it is undeniable that MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 16 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION LA2176836.1 TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 212799-1002!) PROCEEDINGS Ca. \OOOQONm-PWNu-a NNNNNNNNNp-Ip-IHflHflflp-Ip-Ip-A WNQM#WNHO\OOOQO\MhWN’-‘O Loeb a Loob Limited Llabmly Panncrsmp Inciudmg Prolessnonnl carporauons nfie 8:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 24 of 31 Page ID #12152 Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability relates to and presumes the existence of their Purchase Agreements. As the court concluded in Agnew, “claims for breach of express and implied warranties necessarily assume that the warranties were provided as part of the [dealer] sale to [the plaintiff].” Agnew, 2009 WL 1813783, at *4. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration of their claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability with Toyota. See Amisil, 622 F. Supp. 2d at 840-41; Agnew, 2009 WL 1813783, at *4. d. Claim for Breach of Contract Under California law, a claim for breach of contract requires that a plaintiff plead and prove “a contract, plaintiff” s performance or excuse for failure to perform, defendant’s breach and damage to plaintiff resulting therefrom.” Hale v. Sharp Healthcare, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1373, 1387 (2010) (citations omitted). To this end, Plaintiffs assert that they “entered into a contract to either purchase or lease their vehicles from Toyota.” Plfs.’ Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, at 14; FAC, 1m 18, 20-22. Plaintiffs also assert that Toyota breached this contract by “actively [selling] the [Recall] Vehicles without disclosing the [Alleged Brake Issue] to its customers,” and therefore, “the foundation of each contract was premised on Defendants’ material non-disclosure of a safety defect.” Plfs.’ Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, at 14. Undoubtedly, Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of contract “presumes the existence of” and “arises out 0f and relates directly to” Plaintiffs’ Purchase Agreements. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot avoid arbitration of their breach of contract claim against Toyota. e. All of Plaintiffs’ Claims Against Toyota Presume the Existence of, Arise Out of, or Relate Directly to the Purchase Ageements All of Plaintiffs’ claims and allegations against Toyota “presume the existence of,” “arise out of” or “relate directly to” the Purchase Agreements. There is no doubt that the purchase 0f a Toyota vehicle is an integral part of the factual MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 17 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION LA2l76836,l TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 212799-10020 PROCEEDINGS Cas \DOOQQUI-kwNn-t NNNNNNNNNflI-HHHHn-r-tr-t- WNQM-prHOOWHQM-bWNF-‘O Loob 5 Loob lened LIaDIIIty Parlnersn-p Including Professional Corporfilmns a 8:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 25 of 31 Page ID #22153 allegations made in the FAC. Without the Purchase Agreements, there would be no basis for Plaintiffs’ claims against Toyota. See Goodwin, 970 F. Supp. at 1017 (applying principles of equitable estoppel, the court concluded that the plaintiffs were equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration of claims with nonsignatory defendant because “[w]ithout those installment sales contracts, there is no basis for these claims against [the nonsignatory defendant].”). Therefore, Plaintiffs are estopped from avoiding arbitration against Toyota. Plaintiffs cannot claim the benefits of the contract yet simultaneously repudiate the arbitration clause in it. See Mundi, 555 F.3d at 1045 (“Equitable estoppel precludes a party from claiming the benefits of a contract while simultaneously attempting to avoid the burdens that contract imposes.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The reason for this is simple and persuasive: a signatory to an agreement “cannot have it both ways. It cannot rely on the contract when it works to its advantage, and repudiate it when it works to its disadvantage.” Hughes, 659 F.2d at 839 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 3. Plaintiffs Have Raised Allegations of “Substantially Interdependent and Concerted Misconduct” by Toyota and Its Authorized Dealers Plaintiffs are also estopped from avoiding arbitration with Toyota because Plaintiffs raise “allegations of substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by” both a nonsignatory to the Purchase Agreement (z'.e., Toyota) and a signatory t0 the Purchase Agreement (i.e., Toyota’s authorized dealers from which Plaintiffs’ purchased their vehicles). See Hansen, 2005 WL 605 1705, at *2-3; Amisil, 622 F. Supp. 2d at 840. ' As defined in the FAC, Plaintiffs allege that Toyota and its dealers are one in the same. That is, Plaintiffs do not differentiate between Toyota and its dealers throughout the FAC. See, e.g., FAC, 1m 25-26 (“TMS and TMC sell Toyota and Lexus vehicles through a network of dealers who are the agents 0fTMS and TMC. These vehicles are also leased to customers via local dealers through Toyota MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 18 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION LA21768361 TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 21279940020 PROCEEDINGS Cafle 8:10-mI-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 26 of 31 Page ID OOONONKJl-bWNt-I NNNNNNNNNt-Iu-It-Iwr-Iu-It-It-Io-r-n OONQMAMNHOOOONONMAWNHO Loob A Loch Limited Liability Pannersmp Including Prolessianal Corporations #12154 Financial Services (“TFS”). TFS is an umbrella brand name used to market TMC. The leases are prepared 0n the letterhead ofTFS and designate Toyota Motor Credit Corporation [“TMCC”] (a California corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of TMC), as the assignee 0f the leasé, and state that the lessor assigns to [TMCC] ‘all rights, title and interest in the lease and in the vehicle[.] These defendants and their subsidiaries and agents, are collectively referred t0 as ‘Defendants, ’ ‘Toyota, ’ 0r the Company.”) (emphasis added). Thus, Plaintiffs have raised allegations 0f misconduct that are not only “interdependent and concerted,” but identical. Where, as here, a signatory to an arbitration agreement asserts claims against a nonsignatory and raises allegations of “substantial interdependent and concerted misconduct” by the nonsignatory and the other signatory, that plaintiff is estopped from avoiding arbitration of all claims. Franklin, 177 F.3d at 947-48. Otherwise, any arbitration proceedings “between the two signatories would be rendered meaningless and the federal policy in favor of arbitration effectively thwarted.” Id. at 947. D. Toyota Has Not Waived Its Right to Compel Arbitration of Plaintiffs’ Claims Because No Such Right Existed Prior to the United States Supreme Court’s Decision in AT&TMobility LLC v. Concepcion As noted above, there is a strong federal policy favoring arbitration. This policy gives rise to a presumption against waiver of a contractual right to arbitrate. See United States v. Park Place Assocs., Ltd, 563 F.3d 907, 921 (9th Cir. 2009). Because “waiver of the right to arbitration is disfavored . . . ‘any party arguing waiver of arbitration bears a heavy burden of proof.’” Id. (quoting Van Ness Townhouses v. Mar Indus. Corp, 862 F.2d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 1988)). To prove waiver of a right to arbitration, a party must demonstrate: “(1) knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration; (2) acts inconsistent with that existing right; and (3) prejudice to the party opposing arbitration resulting from such MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 19 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION LA217683641 TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 2|2799-l0020 PROCEEDINGS nCa:I \OOONQUI-bWNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHu-HH-HH OOQQUILWNF-‘OOOOQQUIAUJN-‘O Loch a Loob Lamued L-ablliky Pannershlp lncludlng Professmnal e 8:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 27 of 31 Page ID Corporaluons #22155 inconsistent acts.” Fisher v. A.G. Becker Paribas Ina, 791 F.2d 691, 694 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiffs, however, will not be able to show that Toyota has acted inconsistently with a known existing right to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims, or that Plaintiffs have been prejudiced by any inconsistent acts. 1. Toyota Did Not Have an Existing Right to Compel Arbitration Prior to Concepcion First, Toyota did not have knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs’ Purchase Agreements provide that “If a waiver of class action rights is deemed or found to be unenforceable for any reason in a case in which class action allegations have been made, the remainder ofthis arbitration clause shall be unenforceable.” See Mallow Decl., Exs. A, at 4; B, at 2; see also C at 2 (“If any part of this Arbitration Clause, other than waivers of class action rights is deemed or found to be unenforceable for any reason, the remainder will remain enforceable.”). Prior to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Concepcion, controlling law in California and the Ninth Circuit made clear that where, as here, consumer arbitration agreements contain class action waivers, such agreements are not enforceable. In Discover Bank v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that under certain circumstances, class action waivers found in arbitration provisions in certain consumer agreements had the effect of being exculpatory, and therefore, were unconscionable and unenforceable as a matter of law. Discover Bank, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 162-63 (2005). California courts routinely applied Discover Bank to find arbitration agreements unconscionable. See, e.g., Cohen v. DirecTV, Ina, 142 Cal. App. 4th 1442, 1451-55 (2006); Klussman v. Cross Country Bank, 134 Cal. App. 4th 1283, 1297-98, 3000 (2005); Aral v. EarthLz‘nk, Ina, 134 Cal. App. 4th 544, 556-57 (2005). Likewise, following Discover Bank, the Ninth Circuit made clear that arbitration provisions purporting to waive class action rights were invalid under MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 20 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION LA2176836.I TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 212799-10020 PROCEEDINGS O9L Loch 5 Loeb Lumiled Liabdily Pannetship lncludmo Pralesswnal Corporauons ‘e 8:10-mI-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 28 of 31 Page ID #:2156 circumstances such as those present in the instant case. See, e.g., Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Ina, 498 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2007) (applying rule articulated in Discover Bank and finding arbitration provision with class action waiver unconscionable and unenforceable); Laster v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 584 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2009) (same); Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 2010) (applying Discover Bank to find class actibn waiver in arbitration agreement unconscionable, rendering the entire agreement unenforceable). Concepcion fundamentally changed this legal environment. In Concepcion, the Supreme Court held that arbitration on a classwide basis does not substitute for the contractual right to arbitrate bilaterally. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. at 1751-52. “Requiring the availability of classwide arbitration interferes with fundamental attributes of arbitration” because (l) classwide, rather than bilateral, arbitration “makes the process slower, more costly, and more likely to generate procedural morass than final judgment”; (2) “class arbitration requires procedural formality”; and (3) “class arbitration greatly increases risks to defendants.” Id. Recognizing that the shift from bilateral arbitration to class arbitration is fimdamental and substantively affects the rights of defendants, the Supreme Court reversed Laster and rejected the Discover Bank rule. Id. at 1750, 1753 (citing Stolt-Nz'elsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l C0rp., 130 S.Ct. 1758, 1773-76, 176 L.Ed.2d 605 (2010)). Thus, prior to Concepcion, the practical effect ofDiscover Bank and its state and federal progeny was to foreclose Toyota from compelling Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims on an individual basis, in accordance with the terms of Plaintiffs’ Purchase Agreements. Toyota did not have an enforceable right to compel arbitration until the Supreme Court’s decision in Concepcion. See Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. at 1753; see also Villegas v. US Bancorp, No. C 10-1762 RS, 2011 WL 2679610, at *1 (ND. Cal. June 20, 20] 1) (“although the arbitration provision at all times existed in the parties’ agreement, defendants cannot be said to have had ‘knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration,’ until the Concepcion decision MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 21 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION LA2176836.1 TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 2|2799-10020 PROCEEDINGS nCas \OooqosmngH WQGMAWNHOOWQGMAU’ND-‘O Loeb 5 Loeb Limilea Liafll‘ny Pannelshua Including Protessinnal Corporallons e 8:10-mI-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 29 of 31 Page ID #12157 issued”); Estrella, 2011 WL 2633643, at *5 (finding that defendant did not have an existing right to compel arbitration because “prior to Concepcion, California and Ninth Circuit law held that similar arbitration agreements with class action waivers were unconscionable and unenforceable.”). 2. Toyota Has Not Acted Inconsistently with a Known Existing Right t0 Compel Arbitration Second, Toyota has not acted inconsistently with a known existing right to compel arbitration. See Fisher, 791 F.2d 694. In Fisher, the Ninth Circuit examined whether the defendant’s decision not to file a motion to compel arbitration prior to the United States Supreme Court’s rej ection of the intertwining doctrine - which the Ninth Circuit had cited with approval and which would have precluded arbitration 0f the plaintiffs’ claims -constituted waiver. Fisher, 791 F.2d at 694-97. Because the arbitration agreement was unenforceable prior to the intervening Supreme Court ruling, the Fisher court held that the defendant did not act inconsistently with a known existing right to compel arbitration and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate waiver. Id. at 697. Here, as in Fisher, the Supreme Court’s relatively recent ruling constitutes an intervening change in the law. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. at 1750. By litigating this case, Toyota has not acted inconsistently with its right to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims. Moreover, Toyota raised arbitration as an affirmative defense in its Answer, thereby preserving its argument. See Toyota’s Answer to Plfs.’ FAC (Sept. 27, 201 1) [Docket No. 130], at 18, lines 15-18. Accordingly, Toyota has not waived is right to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims. See Villegas, 2011 WL 2679610, at * 1-2 (compelling arbitration and declining to find waiver because “defendants cannot be said to have had ‘knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration’ until the Concepcion decision issued. Prior to that date, defendants had every reason to believe that any motion to compel arbitration would have been soundly rejected, given then-goveming California Supreme Court precedent”); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 22 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION LA2176836.1 TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 21279940020 PROCEEDINGS Cas \OOO'leLh-bUJNu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHr-lh-‘r-l WNQMhWNHOQOO‘JONMAWNF-‘O Loeb a Loeb Limited Linbilily Fannersrnp lndudmg Prolassnonal Corporallons e 8:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 30 0f 31 Page ID #:2158 Estrella, 2011 WL 2633643, at *5 (compelling arbitration and concluding that plaintiffs failed t0 demonstrate waiver because “defendants did not act inconsistently with a known existing right to compel arbitration,” as “prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Concepcion, it would have been futile for the defendants to file a motion to compel arbitration”). 3. Plaintiffs Have Not Been Prejudiced by Any Supposed Inconsistent Acts Finally, Plaintiffs have suffered no prejudice by any supposed inconsistent acts undertaken by Toyota. See Fisher, 791 F.2d at 694. Other than a single pleadings challenge, essentially nothing else has happened in this case. That Plaintiffs have expended time, money, and effort on responding to a single pleadings challenge, however, is not sufficient to demonstrate prejudice. See id. at 697 (finding insufficient prejudice even though the parties had expended time, money and effort by engaging in pretrial motion practice and extensive discovery and preparing for trial for three and a half years); Britton v. Co-op Banking Group, 916 F.2d 1405, 1413 (9th Cir. 1990) (finding that the assertion that party opposing arbitration “spent time and resources in discovery activity and motions practice over a period oftwo years ‘that would be rendered nugatory by a direction that arbitration now be had’” was insufficient to demonstrate prejudice); Park Place Assocs., 563 F.3d at 921 (concluding that the “extreme burdens of discovery, which were disproportionately imposed 0n [the party opposing arbitration]” was insufficient to demonstrate prejudice). In sum, because Plaintiffs will be unable to show that Toyota has acted inconsistently with a known existing right to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims, and because Plaintiffs have not been prejudiced, Plaintiffs will be unable to meet their heavy burden of showing wavier, and must arbitrate their claims against Toyota. MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND 23 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION LA21763361 T0 COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 2 I 2799-10020 PROCEEDINGS Cass- 8:10-mI-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-1 Filed 10/10/11 Page 31 of 31 Page ID #12159 1 V. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, this Court should order the parties to arbitration. 3 In addition, pursuant to the FAA and federal precedent, a stay of these proceedings 4 as to Plaintiffs Del Real, Choi, Scholten, and Li, pending the outcome of the S arbitration is appropriate. 9 U.S.C.A. § 3; see also Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. at 1748 6 (noting that the FAA requires a stay); NS Holdings LLC Inc. v. Am. Im‘ ’l Group Inc. , 7 No. SACV 10-1 132 DOC, 2010 WL 4718895, at *5 (CD. Cal. Nov. 15, 2010) 8 (granting motion to compel arbitration and staying action pending arbitration). 9 . 10 Dated: October 10, 2011 LOEB & LOEB LLP MICHAEL L. MALLOW 1 1 DENISE A. SMITH-MARS 1 2 RACPEL A. RAPPAPORT 13 By: /s/ Michael L. Mallow Michael L. Mallow 14 Attome s for Defendants TOYO A MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., 15 INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR 16 CORPORATION 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND 24 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION umté’ffim‘HJSEn‘lm W'76836-1 T0 COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY Incluggurgnggsnssmnal 2 l 2799- l 0020 PROCEEDINGS Ca: \OOOQOUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNN-flflu-HHI-n-H- WNOM-PWNHO\OOONC\LIIAUJNHO Loeb i Loab lelted Liability Partnership Includlng Professuanal Corporallons #:2160 MICHAEL L. MALLOW (SBN 188745) mmallow loeb.com DENISE . SMITH-MARS (SBN 215057) dmars loeb.com RAC L A. RAPPAPORT (SBN 268836) rrap a ort@loeb.com Loe Loeb LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd.., Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 3 10.282.2000 Fac31mile: 310 282 2200 Attorne s for Defendants TOYO A MOTOR SALES, U. S.A., INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION se 8:10-mI-02172-CJC-RNB Document133-2 Filed 10/10/11 Pagelof3 PagelD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. HYBRID BRAKE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES and PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This Document Relates to: 10-CV-00154-CJC-RNB -CV 01154-CJC-RNB -CV 01248-CJC-RNB UEV-00173-CJC-RNB 8: 2: é 8. V 01255-CJC-RNB LA2176759.2 212799-10020 Case No.: MDL N0. 2172 Assigned to Hon. Cormac J. Carney DECLARATION OF MICHAEL L. MALLOW IN SUPPORT 0F TOYOTA’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS Date. December 5, 2011 Time: 1 :30 p.m. Place: Courtroom 9B Ca. owmflONUI-thH NNNNNNNNNHHHb-HHH Loeb a Loeb lefled annihty Partnership including Proissswnnl CurporaI-ons nse 8:10-mI-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-2 Filed 10/10/11 Page 2 0f 3 Page ID #22161 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL L. MALLOW I, MICHAEL L. MALLOW, declare as follows: 1. I am a partner at the law firm of Loeb & Loeb LLP, counsel of record for Defendants Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and Toyota Motor Corporation (collectively, “Toyota”) in the above-captioned action. I am a member in good standing ofthe Bar of this Court and the Bar of the state of California. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration, and, if called as a witness could and would testify competently to such facts under oath. 2. On September 16, 201 1, my firm caused a subpoena duces tecum to be served on John Elway’s Crown Toyota, of Ontario, California, requesting documents relating to Plaintiff Alexsandra Del Real. In response to that subpoena, on or around September 27, 201 1, John Elway’s Crown Toyota produced the “Retail Installment Sale Contract,” dated June 12, 2009, relating t0 Plaintiff Alexsandra Del Real’s purchase of a 2010 Toyota Prius. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a redacted copy of Plaintiff Alexsandra Deal Real’s Retail Installment Sale Contract. 3. Attached as Exhibit “B” is a redacted copy 0f the “Retail Installment Sale Contract,” dated July 3 1 , 2009, relating to Plaintiff Michael Choi’s purchase 0f a 2010 Toyota Prius, which was provided by Toyota Financial Services. 4. On September 16, 201 1, my firm caused a subpoena duces tecum to be served on Toyota of Richardson, of Richardson, Texas, requesting documents relating to Plaintiff Michael Scholten. In response to that subpoena, on or around September 28, 201 1, Toyota of Richardson produced the “Purchase Agreement,” dated November 10, 2009, relating to Plaintiff Michael Scholten’s purchase of a 2010 Toyota Prius. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is a redacted copy of Plaintiff Michael Scholten’s Purchase Agreement. 5. On September 16, 201 l, my firm caused a subpoena duces tecum to be served on 355 Toyota, of Rockville, Maryland, requesting documents relating to Plaintiff Lu Li. In response t0 that subpoena, on or around October 6, 201 1, DECLARATION OF MICHAEL L. MALLOW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO LAz l 76759-2 COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 212799-10020 PROCEEDINGS Ca: OO‘QONUILUJNH NNNNNNNNN-n-n-Ht-tr-AHHHH OONQMAUJN~O©OONONUILUJNHO© Loch 5 Loeb Lumltea Liability Paflnetsmp Including Protesslanal Corporalions e 8:10-mI-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-2 Filed 10/10/11 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:2162 355 Toyota produced the purchase agreement dated January l7, 2010, relating to Plaintiff Lu Li’s purchase of a 2010 Toyota Prius. Attached hereto as Exhibit “D” is a redacted copy 0f Plaintiff Lu Li’s purchase agreement. 6. We are publicly filing herewith redacted copies of Exhibits A-D in order to comply with Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in consultation with counsel for Plaintiffs, who have requested the redaction of sensitive personal information contained in the attached documents. 7. We would be pleased to make unredacted copies of the documents available to the Court for in camera inspection, should the Court request the parties to do so. I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this tenth day of October, 201 1, at Los Angeles, California. EL L. DECLARATION OF MICHAEL L. 3 MALLOW [N SUPPORT OF MOTION T0 “21767592 COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY 21279940020 PROCEEDINGS Case 8:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Document133-3 Filed 10/10/11 Page10f5 PagelD #:2163 EXHIBIT A DaalarNumber Contract Number .._ w Casé’B. 10-ml-02172'CJC RNB Document 135%,} gF'it‘ed 10/10/llsmfigfgg 2 Of 5 Page ID #21 . .. _ Buya'r Na'me 'a'nd‘Afl' , '(lnclUdlng Cbil‘n n'hd ALEXSAHDRA. DEL. REALM“ . ‘ _ _ .m _ 1201- KETTERING ._n_ , _ g : 'GHTARm (2A c- =. You. the Buyer a_nd Co-Buyar. .il any). may buy lha vaflcla below -for cash o: 1m credit. By_ sunlng thls ponlmct: u:choasa' Io buy tho vehicle c'n credil under the a reemams an from and back a this conlrnct. You. agree to pay Iha Creditor Salhr. (spmetlm‘esf w‘a’ or 'us'.‘ nzlhls comma). the A'rnount Hnano'ed a-nd finance Barge in U.S. lunds according I'olhe peyrhanl'schedule below.Wow“! figure y'ourfh‘ancaehame m; dilly basis.ThaTluih--ln‘-La_fidin'g Disclos'Urgs belowm pan unhis convict NEW “ " Make ' v ' x Used -Ybar and Modei ' 'O'dometar a ' Vahlnleld flllcallon-Nunbar _v Primary Use ForWhlch Purchased v' PRIusv' » ”E" "2010- 70mm , . 1-0:: K I w U businessorcomrnarcl‘al- . STATEN]ENT OF [NSURANGE NOTICENu pa‘rson ts tauulvad as a condIflnn of finandng .. the purclilm'_oi a r_n_o10r do tpwmhaso‘ afn'egnlhle any . munch pa‘dfm'lar‘ Ineuran‘m mfnpany, agam m . =.bmker.quamml mgalied h buy -olha'r'lnsmanca to m’talnw‘u Yohrdoc‘l‘shn In buy or Momma , menllaorhlhlmdllappmvalpmms. The ‘cast nf ‘ your ura‘dll- a‘h a yeafly rala . iofiiviuaalmm‘ebfichifims ” ‘ ‘ . . 11 UMEAka-IABGEHJSNCLUDEUNTHISWNT A FUELS LIABIUTY-OR PROPERTY DAMAGEINSURA PAYMENT FOHBWGWEHABEISNUTPFOMEBYTHSAG En. _. You miy flame Insunnce lhls mum Iran jué'hulqlufiia ‘youcfiggsawfilucc “mtgum “‘ ‘m omqund aw dfiaflrfwmnm‘1d obtain End! ’. machine.Ilpayrmmlamimwvadlnuwitmlauyuuuh wfllpay‘a hdmoaolfl I PrupiymonIJIyoupIyoflalywdwlme .ba’dw‘nada mriflmmda'i'at- , ?SocuIlt‘ylnh'rul.3me a lawmjy lhleladh mainlido h'olnp *j-Mdflbrinl‘ hlon‘nlfluit,San lhls' comm fur dim lrdorri'taflon ludlw lrimmflnn 'abom ‘ repaymsrdlnmbafmhududulnddata niflmmimmuumahdmmw.Immt , _ T. 1. To‘lél Cash Price ' ‘ - , A. Cash PrlcéoiMofprVahIcl'a and Amalia a ' ‘1 CashPrlceVahlrfla -e- " - .~ '2 cash Prlc‘aAm‘easoflas ' " 3. mafmunipuum _ lfuny [unima- h mldmd balm pol namadhwmmecumanlesvdldescmnnium um. Appllc‘allo‘n [or O'pti'ona'l Credit Insurance ' _ ‘ E Emmi 7 . -Dascihn. . ‘ I . . . Dam. ~ -- - " CrnflilJla __; , _B.' Document Pr'npara'flon Fae (nu a gmdmmanlnl faa] Craml Dlsabllg _ ' C. 'Smog Fob Pald II: Soler- . ' ' D.. (Oplqnalflhefl Delarmfl Davina (tn whom 'pald :. E.’ (Op‘flonan Than Deterrent Dévlos _._(lo winrh pdd 3 ‘ F. (Optimal) The_fl Deta‘nem D'Ivi'c'l _[lu whom pad] . -G.'(bpnnna'u Sums Medan ' u. d , ‘ " I . . 'Gndl I imam: n'n ind“.MI Inukama am nut 2‘ . H. I(opviouuinmmim Pmiauimi-Prom (Io magnum: N _ _ _____. ‘ .. fl _. _ mum,mm.mmmmm-MD,“MM V . I: Salaam: (on1am: Items In .A' mfou'nh H) v ‘ - > . - v , _' > mundcrudjt dpablfllfllngmfllhm- a laclnr ln Ito. > "L. ‘ 09m" DMVElm“ Fun“ F" v - ‘alii and mafia :tha axin-cout‘ Cram Ila Imurunczag ‘ g . K. (Oplunai) Snrvlca Conlracl (to whbm paid, - -- an wayward'uhduafnhmm may - r- now: munlrlscumgmtfl maknhie ants. u L (ppfim'n $3M“emu 0° Whom PF”) Gradlly thauranpé‘doeé am.naysgnw“ml! M. (OWNED 59W“mad (1° Whom PG“! 'anlqrhdugfitmib's‘ TI: a ems.cums?“ "Mag, ': N. (Optional) Servlee Colman (to whom paid) ° m fl m 'm dmdalrforfliejw ant'mbls'a-dlmnl Iannlorlhn . _o.r(owananswceCar-uauoownoin bald) mmmmmm‘ V . P. ndo‘r'cml cruise saianca pal‘dby Seller in u"a‘re _a’p‘pl‘ g for tha- cradn ins'uranoe marked v ' above. You: s gnalurp bdn'w means that u agree ‘ that: (1)You am nol efl lble Ior insurance! . .reach‘ed. ur 65m bi day. (2) .You ar‘e e gbta for ‘ (sea downpuy'mant and Indo-In calculatlbnb o. (Opumxmapcmrmlm whom.paw 4 WAIVER s - disability nsuranca anly’ilyau are working brwa as n: (Optional) Unadvmnle Comma cahoullgflun _O'pthn-Agreamam : ot remain war agaek o; m_ota pr: tha “Ema? '- 7 I_ _..._._.,_.V.., ..,‘ a. ‘ 5 T e 5 gmm‘nmmm’ : - , r, .‘ _. uls‘ab Insuranc‘e. nlsmAnaafi'rYLmu v . “"5?- °’ NOT VEH CONDITIONS‘FGRWHICHYOUHAVE _ L r v 8m A DOCTOR OR CHIROPRACTOR IN THE:j .- r , 3' LASTBMONTHS marinate] nlsabIIues Not. - g), _ - . Cmmd'hyourpocyfordatails) 4),: ‘ - Youwnnlmbuythecmdllnsuranca m . Total Cnh Price (Ammunh S) 2.1 Amount Pnld ‘tn Publln omcldn : A Ueanse Fees a. Hmmmrrmmmm Fees 0.. cumin 11m Fees D.- OIheI <25 .Total afllcmFm [A Muph 0| r _ - _ V 3. A'moum ?ald to lnlurlnc'e Campmm . _ - o}; ‘ ‘ -~ -‘ ' ”a r 3 " conmdahlwmefla- ' (Tualpmnlurm [rum Statemem of Insurance nntumn a +b) r - r I I . A ”mmm” m“ .(nd "m “m n 4. D Smog Cerflflnntlon or B ExemMIon _Foe Fold to Sm- ' $5 " fprovldgd unlo'n youWWumawn to ply Ina nlrn 5. Submnl l1 Ihmugh 4) » - ‘ _ . s_ _ £5) :hltgnll uchoooaln' comma. mo mama Isshown v ‘ ~ - .. ~ 3 hlwn1 oflhollomlzuflnn A_mamFlnmdSaa rp > 5- “m ”MP'YMM ' - ' ,- ‘ . ‘ nanlm brddali on Ina terms and oo'nlfluons Itpvmfl A. AgmdW- I-"alue' Yr___ - M-Ir- __ s r ' 44> ' I Pm! lh‘écm . .. . V, ..__. Model ____'_ 066m _ ___;__ . - . Term '_V _Mo -___-..__ ' . » - ‘ ‘ Name olGm Coplmct VIN- n v... n)...r\...n “I _-_- n.u-.... J' !' 3' ' 5 m Iwamto buy naa‘p{‘oonlraci‘u, A GBLOVGBH 1-3 1‘ File ' #2165 c se figm'mlmnz CJC RNB JD“... Total Ofllcl'a! Fees (A lhmugh D). Dale ..3-Co-BuyarSIpnalure'; I . 3. AmountPaldtoln-unncoComparles‘ v v v f3) ‘ (Tomi pramlums 1mm Slammer" o! Insurance cultmn a + h) mafia??? c‘omnl ‘gflA&l Fmfilfi‘lgsb‘ film“; ‘ con noraumo nun wnM' 4. BSmag Camncuflonor D Exemption Foe Puma Stan . ’4) H mm um“; You “q Maw Ind i9,“ ,DW m, u": 5. 5mm)“ mmyM) ' . . . . I - . 5) fl“? Jflfiswau“ mum?!" mfzm'uw“ V 4 .v 'nem em onn n nancs u t 5 T°’|'D°W"Paymant v V , ' ~ V- ‘ :.‘ 'wnmbldmllsonmalennsandwmunnslgpr m.ftlg A4 Agv “"- HValuo ,Yr'_‘___I‘-'-~ ‘ ~ $_‘__-__ A) - i Ipanonhlseonm , V l. Model '___.__1 1 Odom_ ___-. z .-___ ' .. x ‘ '. ".4 Term' 75 Mos ___5AP ”A_IVER ._' I VIN . _ . . Yr . ' . . , , ' ‘ ' I NumamGep Comm a LessPrlorCr’adhu-‘La‘asa Balance $ ”BI ’ IWBHHO by; nabt'ontract \I ' G Netdee-lMAlass a)(lndlcalaflanagaflva number) $ 3) . I Buy'ar Jens)! D. meadows ant -- ’0)" '- E M Wu?" g .c) ' OPTIONAL ssavic: comets.) You want Io V V an 1:311 -V . g 'pumhmlhe service commons wflflmvdlhme hflawln F mm,_ V 5_ , 1 v V;c om‘pl Is) lormzlerrmaéshovm bslowlonhe chargdsg a Cash 4 .$._ 1“ I «V'shawnh em1K.1 1M.1 d/oMo. Total Dawnpaymenuc through G) . i I " ’ ‘33. I 6)‘, : (Haw.marmomhaammmmmmmmmmmmmmmnmm "' ~ :3 " -7. Amwnlfinancadfiled's B]_ ,. _v . $.; 7) 36.me LOAN ' WM HAY BE850W TD PLEDGE SECUHTY FOE THE L0 Wll. BEWWW FOE THE “STALLMBU PAYMENTS 0N 8 IHS REIMIWALLHWSALE WWC'MNDTHELOM "AUTO BROKER FEE DISCLOSURE . v It thls cbntract reflects the retail sale of a ‘ new motor vehicle. the sale ls nal subject g. to a fee received by an aufiobroker from us V ‘ unless the following box ls checked: - ' Proceeds 01' ~-- ' ":orn _-_____._ Ammnls _ __finlneo Charges_ Totals _". __ " ”mush. v 'lnslallmants ofs ___ _- v s _ lmm'lms' Luau ls shown In Item GD ;- D Name- gf- autabraker recelv'lng fee. i! , ‘ ' applicable‘ ‘ . ' ’ ' .r ' How mts--c'0i~i-'r'1'a)xc1-5ém 3's CHANGED. ms - h 'contracl contains the snllfa a‘gra'amsm between you ‘ ‘ sausage lam 7,0 cnncEL¥mmrw o'aLa'uymign'haie me' pmvtsm o: me Sellers mam in 0am: section o " 'End “.5WWW FF, “'5 60"“ch Any GM“? t0 ?h‘e' -; é;ufi 1a; m uh. Mann. nun m cunts! I Seller‘s unable‘ to_ 'mlgn tfls oomr‘am 10‘ a Ina‘nelal lnisuuon wlu gp'p1y " m.f"ufii be J“ mef‘g 790d b9"! Y5".3W W9 ., m_n n: Na or’albh’ahasspr‘b binp'lrj’g- , Buyarflg’lgL Coauy'urngfi. -Co--Buyer . OPTION: D'Yau pay'na flr‘lance Charge: ‘ the A m'qmjt Financed Rem 7. Is aTd 1nm ohf‘r before THE MINIMUM PUBLIC LIABIUTY- INSURANCE LIMITS:PWIDEDTIN LAW M UST. BE MET BY EVERY PERSON WHO-PURCHASES A VEHICLE IF.YOU 'AHEUNSURE WHETHER OH h '-NOTYOUH CURRENT INSURANCE POLICYWILL CWEH‘IOUBNEW” ADOUIBED-VEHICLE INTH E EVENT O IDENT,‘VOU SHOULDBONTACTYOUR flNSURANCE AGENT. . ' . _WA3N|NG,....... Mg. :.--..-...... w“...Wu..- g.-......_ .;-_m-- .~ Mi; m.- H- _.-. Mg‘ .. ............,.E,....-.. “n.4,, .zumg... ...-... YOUR PRESENT POLICY MAY Ndl‘ COVER COLLISION DAMAGE OH MAY NUT- PROVIDE FOR HJLI. fl MENT COSTS FOR THE VEHICL ’BEING PURCHASED IF YOU DO NOT HAVE FULL COVERAGE, SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE FOR COL LISION DAMAGE MAY BE AVAILABLE T0 YOU THROUGH YOUR INS URANCE AGENT.UH THROUGH THE- SEtLIMG DEALER HOWEVER: UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. THE COVERME.’YOU OBTAIN THROUG!‘ THE DEALER P_ROTEQTS _0N LV'THE DEALER. USUALLY UP_ TO [HE AMOUNT O_F :THE UNPAID BALANCE REMAJNING AFIEH.THEVEH ICLE HAS BEEN REPOSSESSED AND SOLD; .FOH ADVICE UN FULLQOVEHAGEI .WlL ’PROTECT YOU INTHE EVENT 0F LOSS OR DAMAGETOYOUR VEHICLENOU SHOULD CONTACTY OUH INSURANCE AGENT. WUYER SHALL3mm ACKMOW E06 THflT- HEfSflE UNDERSTA ‘5 THESE PU C HABILH'YIEHMS AND DONDlTlD .‘ "SISfi ' Represemailona ‘of Bu'yeri: Seller' h‘a‘s relied on Ih'e irulh andaccuracy oflha lniomafldn proyld e’d gean a trua payoff ainount on the vehicle traded In. lf lhetfiayoyoff amount is' moreihan the aniount‘s above In , llarihe‘ excessflgemand. ll -1h's.payolf amount ls less an t he amounl shwn above In item _6_E as "Prior Credit Buysr X - ' O_o-BWGr X Notlce Ia bufar. (i) Do 'npigslgn this agreementbefore you read II or Ill! conialns any blankspaces lo‘ be filled In. ‘2 .You are entitled |o a compleiely tlllad '- . . In copy of th s agreen'enMS&You can g9 pay lh'e full amount due under 1111‘s agreéme'nt a1 ajny tl'me((4) l1 you’ de'ln'ul n th'e performance 0| yourpohllga‘tin n‘s‘: v underthla agreamam 1nd ve lcle may repossessed and- ou maybe sublet}! to sultand Ilablflty’. for iha‘ unp'a‘ld lndabiednass evld'en'cadby thls agreement. 'e -' II you luvs u c'm'npl'llnt conc‘ernlng flil: sale. yn‘u a'hould tty tnmom ll wlth lho teller. . - Cominim: concerningm mg fractious or meth‘ads by Ihu Sailor may be Mama i’o the dly momo'y, lhe' dlsl'rlnt atlnmey. or m lnv'ea'flgmr lot the Depaflninn! ammo: Vehicles, or any combkmlontto!» Aflur thls cnnlm't is signed. lfio‘ «ll e’r fiuy~n'ut."c9mge',(ha financing o'r‘ payment terms unlau you agree lh wrmng la .Ih a ch‘angp. Vo'u du rm have to auras to any chnhgn; I ‘ . and ll I3 In unialy or dammit} . nn'i-IIM [Ar Iha ‘ul in mnllé a [mam clung; you (n oo'n’ri‘ ecfl'on with J rade-(n Vehtda. re‘grasa'nlmai ydu ave'i ‘4 1m?) SB as t'Prior Crédil or Lease Ba anca; you must pay a ‘ 'elie‘rwlkl refund tha'dltferanca to you ' BuyerSlnnulfltu ______ "'c' I ai's n‘al‘urex. The Annual Percentage Rate may be- 'negatiable with the.Sell and retain its. right. to receive a-part _of_ the Finance C harge _ ' ‘ THERE [S N0.COOLING-OFF.PERIOD UNLESS YOU OBTAIN 'A CONTRA I . ' cllflomln (aw dads not provide {or n'Moflna mu" or:other eamflaflan adm which ‘s‘alea'mm ‘re‘.-'y'ou cannotliter canes! uni: ‘Th‘e seller max assign his contract I ' RMS'OF THIS CONTRACT. Yw: gOOH'FIHM THAT BEFORE YOU SENED THIS GWRAGT, ' ME(WE ITIOYOU, AND YOUWERE FREE .TO TAKE II ‘ eonlubtshnplybmuse youc e o’ur’ml'nd, dadde Ikmhlclecoaisoo mueh onulsh nu lime Ir'ed | “lirenli‘ehlc'h After ou V - . ,- :ignbelovg-Hou myonly cy onlrac'lvnlh lhowuwntolthmllsrnllorlegal uusyenudusgudfimve r cullnfnlalmdzyies flnflmfigfiflgfiggfmwgggg requIre I se em offer a 2-day contract cin'ullaflon option on ‘usod vehiclu- Mth‘ a purefi‘nsa prion ol lm' thin $40,000. wblogl lo cumin- mum“cw“ 0N THE mink gm. BEFORE statutory condIHun': Th1: Contact ’can ultlflgh a'pnan n mm daés mil 'uppiy to lhmlaol u rectum“ .vehl'cla', I Momma, .0: 'an v off hlglmy motor v'ahlnleaubj'm to l'd 'anllflcillo’n 'unds; Ilium]: law. Sefe lhl’ vehiclecomm winaflqllon option Ignemqnl lo! delnils. ism“m6" YOU00mm"m YOUmam .‘ ' V. COWLEIELVflLLED-IN COPYWHEN YOU SIGNEQIT. ’. , Buyer Signa 3 - ._ a 1" DaleMCo-Buyar Signature X. ' GmBuyaré'nnd 01h: $-A comm; l's _ persén who ls responsible lo: paying lho- snltro dobl. An bum. o'wna'r ls parson‘ Whosemums on (ha ‘ Ms In Ihe s‘acurlry lnlams In lhe vahlclp glwn la u‘: h' thl's comma _' dons nnl huvu In pay I19 debt The olha'r qunag .. m1; 337' ;_ ‘ . OtherOmrSIunalumX ' " Addrnsv BUAHANTY: To lnducb us la sell me vahMo Io Buyor. each anon wh o sl as a Guararnur individuaw ummeas the payment oi this contract. ll Buy er fans In pay any mungy wing 3 _ m unis comm. aach Guarantor. mum pa ltwh‘en asked- EI Buuunlur be' IlaMa‘ 1w lha t_olalnmuun! wing mnif olhermmIlsa nlg’n as Guarahlar. and even ll Buyer has a g: g :- wmplata dufansebGuarantor‘sdemmd ralmhumem ent Each Ommoraar995w boltiibo)a'mnll w: do‘orggo r m_otoollhe II mlalve 'meauyer me flmsmmy one or mare" ‘ payment; 2nIva a lull at pedal release ti: an ofisr Guarantor‘ta) ‘ralaua any security )w lass flu'n me Buyet lh'an theW amnu awlng or (5) ohmlse read: a settlement relating h ls mime: or extend lhs contract. nah Gmnhr acknowledgumam o!g ampl e! copy ofHa cannotw guaranty ll ma flma as!gnln9 ‘ Gmmtawalva's nofleaof a'oaaplancoofmh Gummy. mksd Ina Buyers mmmént. non ' limo, and dofmill; and mllcéa 'ollha urliou-ilmdnp al any Vine. and olany demands upon |_'1_s Ewan; - - - “06112/09 ' ’ Guaqnlar X__________..___._._. Date Guarantor X Add“: vEROHH TO‘g‘OTAw SellerSlgrlsw ' ‘ "r M&Wflafnflfimmfigaiiw'fofigwWWW“' ‘ ‘ ‘ , , mmwromzmfimuflmfi'anmWM r , > DEALER COPY. ‘ -"'" iled ‘O/lOll-l-Page 4 of 5-2399 IDCaofifirfio'fikfififia fiRNB Documefitif’gz FINANCE.CHARGEAND PAYMENTS :.- ' ~ :.l_, We wlll sell the vehicle [t y'ou do not get It back. l! you do not a. How v've wlll fl'gui'e Flnanc'e Charge. W‘e wlll figure the " - redeem We wIll séllthe ve'hlcle'. We _wlll 'se'nd y'oua wrlt‘l'en notice v Finance Charg_e_on a dally basis at the Annual Percentage - of sale before selling the vehicle. ' Reta on- the 'unp'ald part of the Amount Financed. Creditor ~ . ' . We wlll ap‘p‘ly the money lrom the s'ale, less alrowed eXpenses to , V Seller may recelve part of the Finance Charge. . ' v ,. the amount y9u_ owe.Allowed s_xpanses are expenses we 'pay. as b. Ho'w we wll'l, apply payménfa. We may apply s_achv ' . g a_dlrectrqsult of taking the vehlcl‘e, holdlng It, preparing It for sale. payment to {he earned and unpaid part _ol the‘ Finance - and selllng It. Anomey .fees and court costs the law 'permlls. are Charge, to the unpaid part of the Amount Financed and to ~- " ' -- also allowed expenses If any money ls left (surplus). we will pay oiher amounts you oWo under thi's Contract in any ord' r w_'e-' choose. , 'c. How laie payments .or ea‘rly payments change .wha you- , H lo y'ou u'nléss the law raqulra's‘ us Io- p_a‘y ll tn 'sornaon'e else. :lf money from tfi'e. 'sale‘ .ls‘ n_o_l ehou‘gh lo’ 'aythe amounf yqu uWe,. 'ou- mus] p_a'y thé rss_t 10'us_‘. II yo‘u 'd'o not pay_t_hl's ai'no'uht when ‘must pay. We _bas'ed the Finjanc'e Charge; Tntal of, " ' we ask. we' r_nay 'cha'rge you lntérest at the Annual Percemage' Payments, and Total Saie Prlc'e shov'vn on th'e from on the 3' "' . T Hale sha‘wn on the face orthls contract, not to exceed the highest assumpllon that yqu wlfl make every payment on Ihe day. Itf r319 permitted _by law, Lintll you- pay._ ' _ Is due. Your Flnance Charge;Total oi Payments, arid_ _Total.-- ~ = 9. .. Whit wo- may' do about optlo'nal Insurance. maintenance, Sale Prlca wlll- be more If you pay-late and less if you pay ‘. ‘ f sonil'co, oi other contracts. This contract may contain charges early. Changes may lake th'e form of a larger orsm‘aller fln'al payment or. at our- option. mo're a_r fewer payme'm's o! the ’ sa'me a'rn'ou'nt a's yoD'r s‘ch‘edula'd payment wlm. a 's'rna'lL'e ' final paymen'g. We .wlll. send you:a notipe telling yo about. " ' t_h'ese "change f ‘ th'a fln scheduled p‘ayme . ‘ , ~'d. r You m'ay prepay. Ybu flay pie yall‘orphri 0H part of- the Amount Financed m any time. If yo'u 'do so. yo‘u mast payme éarnqd and unpalq p_a_rt of- the F1na_n_c‘e‘ Charge and all other amounts due up '10 1he da'lé'of you'r pgymeni * As oi 1he d'ate of you'r payment i! the mlnimum fina‘hce r ,. »' - " ‘ ‘ ' . charge ls greater'than the earned Finance Charge you may H ‘ ‘. If you do not get a wrlflen _Warra'nty, and the Seller does not be charged the difference; the mlnlmum finance chargq ls' - 3 :ent‘er Into' a servlqe contvact wlthln 9'0 d‘ays from the date ol ‘as follows. (1)$25 iflhe origina‘lAmountFinancad doe‘s noj' his c'o'htr‘act, t_he Seller- makes _ho‘ Warranties; express or, .exce‘ed $1 000; (2).$50 If the _orIglnal Amount: Financed | "vehicle, and. tber‘e. wlll- b‘e no Implied? ' jmo‘re man $1- 000 butnot more'tha'n$2,000 or(3 75If1h' _ s- bf matchantablllty or- of fitna’ss fo a‘ pér‘tlcular" o'riglnal Arhount- Flna'nca‘d r‘s m'or'e than $2.000. _- s V .~ i ' nfo'r Optional Insurance, maintenance. servlce.. or other contracts. . ' m_and that y_0u_ p_'ay all you_oWe' _at once or we r_eposs'ess ' ' " 'er thes'é contracts and _Arnedv charges t_o r'educe. Thls pr‘ovls on does not affect a'ny. Warranties coveringt abrah- ~ mat the ehlde mahufacture muldgfmhersm er as sold ' an _af_m chantabllltyis no_t ' 2. .YOUFI OTHER PROMISESTO US- . . - r - -It th'é..vohlole 'ag'ed, desiroye'd o'r_ missing ' _Y_ou,. _ agraa'tc’ pay H ' - thi u V ;a I _ . THATYOU AFIE LIABLE.F0 THE GAPAMOUN ' _gap c'unlra'cl [debl cancéllallqn. contract) tor mamas of. Iha 'gap amduni'r'nay.b'e- ofler'ed far'an addmonai charge. b. Using the véhlcle;-You agree hot to rémové. the_'v - :from _th‘e U', . .t -' rent. geese. o‘r .tra'nst -perrnl_ss'l_on_ . r s sslzure; cbnflsca€lon.; ' vgrepa'lr bllIs, r'ag‘ej r ‘ -'vehlc'|a,-yn ‘gre__e orep'a’ythe‘ mountwhen w‘e es_kforzlt c. ‘; Securlty‘ lntere'si . v "Y_ou give Usasec ty ihter silnz- “ Z'Tha Vehicle nd allpa'rtsq good nstallad on‘ , r All money orgood;rec'eTVed (pr‘o‘c'e'eds) forjt'h'a Va - ‘_Alllnsuranca.. m_a‘i enance.servlce orm ' onkr'act - ' We r‘nay. delay ’ls éontractj thut'loslng them;For e‘xamp‘ ‘ M V maklh some p‘ay‘ménts wnhbu extending he flm' for making" ' " - th'e lniurr‘na‘flo‘h ecessaryio Verify an‘y Hem? ‘ conialnedln yourcredltappllcatlonu‘ "s . ‘ r-e .. V This secures" payment D! all you owé bn this co'nl' _ secures your other agre'arnents In thls' contram és the law . aflowa. You wlll make sure the {me shows our s_a'cu'rlty ~ ' ' Interest (Ilen)- lniha vehicle. ., , ‘ You walve the provlslons o! Calif Ve'hl'cle Code‘ Secllo‘n' 1808 21 and ‘ d3 Insutance yo‘u must have on the vehicle; ._ , . " ' authorize the quflornla Depanmem _01 Maid: Vehicles t‘o_ furnish your r 'Yau agree‘ lo have physical damage lnsuranc'e.covering"Ios ' ~ ‘ ‘ - ‘ I H V _ oi or damage to-the Vehicle for the term of this contract The? Insurance_'mUst cqver out In_te_re'_st1n the vehicle. |f~yo'u do npt: f: h'ave' this Insurance ‘Wa- may,- If We cho‘ose, ,damage Insurance. . . e decide .to _bUy physlca damagm lnsu'rance. .we may -_e!1h'er buy Insurance 'lhat co've s- ynur‘ - Interest an'd a_ur interest Inme vethle, or b'uy Insm'ance tha ' oovers' only our Interest It .We b‘uy ehher. typ'e oi lhsuran‘c we will 1e” yb'u Which type 'a'nd the 'ch'arg‘e y_ou must pay The char‘ge Wlll b'e the 'p'remiurn ior- the Insurance and:a financ ~ ‘ charge 'equal to lhe Annual Percentage Rate show on e 'frpnj of lhls' cohlrac‘i _or, _a'l om: op'lign tha‘ hlghast‘ratet 7-. p’er_r_nlt_s IHh'e vehiclais Io‘stprdar'naged you agree alw‘e: ‘ Ins‘utanc s'attl'eme‘nt ta rgduce wh t‘yuLi W‘e ' hjchyou _are nqrmalfy I , required. l‘o send ._yo_ur' payments, unles Ifle‘rent address or “{el‘ephone number Is glveh .lo you tn wfitlng by 'a's ‘he Iac‘aklon where e' Would Ilke lo be_ noltfléd )We' wIII iell y'ouwhere to get clalm form's. ou 'rnust_ send iri. the completed torrri to _the |n's‘ura_n_cé company_as . aqn a‘s. possl _and'tell us a‘s soo'n as‘ you do _ y‘our dl’sablllty. Insurance co‘v‘e‘rs 'all. a_f'.‘ydm miss; d payment(s)._WE ‘. ' CANNOT_THY T0 COLLECT WHAT YOU OWE.-OH FORECLOSE' . 'UPON QR; HEPOSSE$S_~.- ANY_ COLLATERAL UNTIL _THBEE, , °"9F’a'f‘m VG-ih'c'e '.‘_CAL:ENDAH MONTHS. AFr'En your arm, missed payma‘n‘t 1's .uue o'r ' °- Wh" ““9”“ t° murmdfln’m‘m’i ”‘a'menancev ' until the Insurance company pa‘ys or rejects your clalm- Whichever ' "me“ °" ”h” ”mm“ “”9“ " we 99‘ a refund °' ‘ 'comes flr'sL We can However, 1ry tn 'collecl fo’reclose, or repossess if insurance. maintenance, service. oroth‘erconira‘cicha'rgas‘. I ‘ you have. any money due and owlng us or are 03.16th m deiau" V°” agree mat we may sums“ "1° rem“! "0m “mm 'y°‘."-' 7 when‘ your dls‘ablllty' cialrn Is made o'rlf a senior- mortgage orlle_n holder v°w°. A ' - v .- - . v. - j j ls foreclosing h -l l "-hi "1 m I d- .rlf the InsuranCe com an a s t e_ cam w n- e res ca en ar 3- ’FYOU PAY LATE 0R BREAKYOUR OTHER PHOM'SES- ‘ - months, We mu‘st swappttfieprxoney a's 1hough 'you paid or'I time If the 9- Y°° may-m [ate .°."'”9°5' Y°” w'" pay a [ate Charge °"- '3 ' Insurance company rejects lhé clalm‘ wllhln the three calendar months each ‘319. Paymem 35 Show” 0n- “‘9 “’0'" “”91““ °f a ‘ ‘v - - :-or‘ ao'c'epts th'e_ claim w-Imlhdhe threé;calendar months on é partial late _payman‘t 'or lata' charge db'es not. excuse 'your Iate‘ _ otal'dlsa'blmy-I you w." have 35 days Paymgnm" "193" “WW" may.k°°p mak'Wlate Payments ' fr‘of'n- the daté. that 1he .feja'cfio r- the acceptance of. .Ihe panial , . lfyau p‘ay Iale, we m_a‘y also la‘k'e the steps described below,” ,V_V'_,disa-bimy c'la'Imn is- sent m pay .p Adue paym'ems‘. D, me dfiarence b. I Y0“ may ”“9 t° 937' 9“ V9” °w° 3‘ °"ce' H .yw b‘eak . =_b91ween the past- due payments _an'd. whai iha: insurance t_mm'pany your 'promls'as (default); we may demand 1th YOU Pay 3".'f ' .pa'ys for'jhe partlaj dlsabiflty. p_|u5_ late chargJas _You can c'ont'acl us. and YOU 0W9 0" “1'5WWW! 3‘ °“°°-' SUbiec‘ 1° any fight me law: Swa wlil1‘ell y'ou how rhucl'i you owe. After ihat tln'ie, .we can take actlon Q'VGS You 1° fems‘m "“5 00mm“ ' ih éotlecl o'r ioreclo'se' or r'enoSsess 'a'nv colla1era! vou mav have ulven. dlsabllltyand pays:--|_a_s's th’an Case BvbwpmHWEleflinRthnflmwment 133913 mfifigggmmaj’flg’éfim'fium ID a. You may ow'e late charges. You Will pay a I'ate charge 216g ‘ rance company rejects the claim wlthln the thi'ee calendar months “ch [3‘3 paymam a5 5h°wn °n me [mm Accepmnce mug or accepts the claim wlthln the three calendar months on a partlai '29 gngrgagufi‘; cohuarge dk°°5 "ml .exclufe your- lace . disability and payslessthanforatotaldlsabllity, you will have 35 days a YT: I ta we a Vals TTEVkaaieP Ta‘mdg afibpagg‘eeln 5 - fr'o'm the data;that the 'rejecflonaorstha acceptance of the partial . h .YY: "Eaay ha“ tom Y “D, o e snip? 9.59". a .b -°W-k...~ - ._d_lsablllly- claim ls sent jo- pay- past due payments,.-'or the difference ‘ 0m mymms°(defgax)aw:°r:a “é: °:$:‘t y°u ereau” between the past due payments and what th'e Insurance company Wu Deva on this contmmv ‘ n Y ubmaa a fin.g1 VI a paysforthe partlaldlgablllty. plus“late charges. You c_an contactus. and Y|°ves .0“ m ramsm WE: fe': 19° ° any r 9 9 aw > yva wlll tall you how m'u_ch -you ow-e.Afterthat lime.‘we can take acflon‘ 36,3111)" means _ F 5 °n Vac -' , ‘ . . to collectortoreclose or rep_ossess‘ a_hy 'u'ollateral.you_ may have given. '. you do no, pay- any paymem on “me . - j _v . ‘ ; H thdel Insurance company accepts your clalm but requires that you - ‘ , sen n additional forms to remain 'ellglble fiorconfinued payments you zzaegé‘l’teafglpsueéalagzmple'e ”mismadlnglntmmqum 0" should send In these co'm'ple'ted addltlohal. forms no lafler than _ I r_ mrequlred If you do not send In these iorms on flme. the Insurance Zgiz‘sicoau pgxgjfmgp'ggnkmpw or °n° ‘5 started f ' company m_ay s_top paying, and _we wlll men be able to take action lo . The Vehicle Is lost damaged or destroyed or - ‘ r collept or loraplosa or repossess any collateral you may have glven _ - You break any agreements In thl's contract. ~ I' ' . _ - _ 7 _ _- Sena, 3 ngh! to Cam” mojmfigényé; giflsog: 32:”: tamedmgaalg‘ ppaarr: g} {:2 __ . . a; S'aller. agrees to deliver the vehicle .to you-on the dale this contract _ Finan-c-a Charge. any late charges- and. any amoums due m “1., . Is §lgnéd_ by Seller and you. You understand that- I1 m_ay take a few V becauseyou defaulted ' ' g > :days fdrSa‘llerto 'v'arify yourcre'dlt and asslgn ihe‘ contract You agree m pay 'O'u’r; xth'at lf Séller l's_ unable- to asslgn lh_e_ contract _to _any' one ot lh'a ‘ c. You may have to .pay collection costs. You ‘ r reasonable costs tocollectwria't you 'awzancmaing afidmey financial Institution's wllhwhom Seller regularly does business und'er en assignment acceptable to Seller, Seil'er m_ay cancel the contracl‘ foe“: [2:31:glztz'ouceoclraztflggggfiyagfiaa tgggyfze‘zigraglg J3: - v b; ‘Se'lle‘r shall 'glvé y'ou Written notice (or In.any other mannarln whlch' m exceed s1 5 If aw qh-eck you 9N3 m u-s lg drs-hanmed _ - ‘ - _' x actual notice ls given to you) within 10 days oi the ’daté mls contract d We may mke the vehicle "om you u you d-efmm we may . ' ' j » . ,1: signed Ir Sellerelecls to cancel._Upon receipt of such notlca, you ' take (repossess)me vehlcle "om yofi If we do-5° peacemuy " . , _. rnusi lmmadlataly ralurn the vehlcle‘ to Seller In the same mnditlnn and. the law allows n n our vehlcla has an aledm-mc :_V s . .as when s'old_. reasonable wear and-tear axo‘a‘pled. Sener mus’l g‘lve- y v - =' :' back lo' y" an érathn 'recelved by Seil'er. IncIUdlngany Irade- tracking device. you agree ihat we may use the device t'o ' : Egglgxextahalfi:ryplvavgegggt?:nzexlllf3352333633315:' i - _ I - Ii you do nol Immediilely return the vehltle you shall be liable lnr all If any Personal items are ln 1he‘ Vehicle we may sloré them“ "j j ’ :5::::;':§::;i€i$:enser "1 {'3‘an "1° Vah'C'e "0m YOU. ‘nGlUdlng ngagimys;alggggg.s§ tagguagghgollaasgnméhese,"ems ' 6 ' :Wfllla the' vehlcle Is In your possesslon. all {arms oi the contract. r e' "ow you can get “‘8 vehic'a back fl wé. take. it ;~ u "lndudtng'ihosa relating to' use ._ot the vehicle and insuranceforih‘a ' repossess.me vehlcl-e you. ma-y pay to a u back (reéeam) il Jae tn full force and.you shall assume a" rlsk 'ol loss or_ g ”damage ha vehicle. You mus! pay_all feasp'nable casts for. rapalr «- Logwgerffieefigfig ggglaatemgagéfirfltya? ggdeégéxggf of any dén‘lpg’g {a fha véhl‘cl'e until tfia v_ehicleis returned Ia Seller; . ‘ vahlde by paying pastdua_p_ mants‘ an'd any. a ‘ch’arg' '. ‘prowdlng uprootOf Insurance}. n_d/oi' taking ath‘er actlon ‘ - cure ihé- d'afadlt W‘e will 'provlde‘ you all notice; r_eq’ulra'd by ' ‘Iaw to te‘ll you When and hnw much l'o'f d/_ what” ‘ actlon you' mu‘si __laka _to_ redae'rn the vehlcl " " .9 In' vehicle. _.'-fl.__ ‘_; ms REPRESENTATIVE 08-.c ; , 2. 'IF A DISPUTE lS AHEITHATED,YOU WILL GIVE.UPYOUH RIG .ANY LIDATION-OF INDIVIDUAL _ - CLASS CLAIM YOU MA HAVE AGAINST US INCLUDING ANY _" ,AFIBITFIKI'IQNS ~' r ' ' ' 3. DISCOVERYAND RIGHTS T0 APPEAL INARBITRATION ARE GENERALLY MORE LIMiTEDTHAN IN A LAWSUIT, A_ND OTHER RIGHTSTHATYOU - ' AND WE WOULD HAVE IN-COURT MAY- NOT BE jAVAlLABLEiIN AHEITHATIO _ _ ‘ V. Any clalm or dls' Ute, whether In cdnlr'acl. to'r't;statute o_r' ‘oth‘érwls (lnclu'd1ng‘_th nterp laflén a > ' ' of the claim or- lsp'ule); batwebnyu an'cl us or'our ”Bmplpyee .orr'a's_sl_ n Wh‘lc : purchasé or condition of .thl's vahlcle‘. thls- cohtract 'o'r ajny re’suttlng trans cl . not slgn this comr'a'ct shall; a1 your or. our ‘elactlo'n; be.'r'esolvad by n a -or dlSpu‘l'a I5 not sub eat 10- btndin .ar_bljtatl_oh.- 1I'1Is Arb'ltr'atlb‘ Cla'u's sh .1 a‘ slnglp Erbilr'ator on ‘an Individual a'sls 'and no! as acla‘ss' abtl v one 'of lli’ejollowlng arbitra'tl‘ori organizations a'nd its a'ppllca'ble a forumsgom) the Arnerlcan-Arbitrauon Assoclatlon. 335 Madlsori. Av 'Fip'o' ‘ I Wm a'ny other_o'rgan_[zatlon‘ tha1 I r ypténpay choosp subleg‘t _lo our approval. You may gel a copy 01 the 'rule oi lh e organizatlo by on‘lactlng the 'a'rbltratl or'g'anlzallon or visiting [ts , We s ta ' .- 3 Arbitrators shall be' aflorneys or retired iu‘dges and shall be sale'c'led pursuant lo the appficable rules. The arbitralo'r shall applg-gbve'ming substantive law , In making an aw'ard The a'rbllr'atfon he'arln she'll be conducted 1r] the federal dlstrIct In. whlch you reslda.unla'ss the Credltor- eller_ ls a pad}: to the claim or dispute. jn which case the hearln wl_ll e held In the federal dlstrim where thls contract .‘was executed. We wlll advance;your flllng. administration.. service of case management iae a_n your arbitrator or hearlhg fee all up to ‘a rna'xlmum oi $2500“ which rna‘y. be reimbursed by declslon-of the arbitralor a1 the‘ arbltralors dIScretIon E‘ach party Shall be .‘re'sponslbl'e io'r Its own’ aflorna'y expen and other ie'as‘. unless.awarded by the arbltral‘or under applicable law If the chosen' arbitratlon organlzallo'n's ru'las confllcj wlth' lHls Arbitration Cl'ause". 'lhen lhe provisiqn’s' of':thla Arbltrafloh Clause aha]! c'ontrol T-ha . arbitralou’s award shall be ilnal and bIncling on all parties. except th'a't in the event the a'tbflrato'r's award for pérly Is‘$0 _o'r a'ga‘lns'l a‘ a is In exc'es's of ‘ S1 00 000 or incmdes an _aWard_ of [njuncllv’a relie!-agafnst a party; mat party. max request a new‘- arbitration und'er lhe‘ rule's '01.the arblrat n_ organizatlon I by a -threa-arbitrato_r panel. The appealing party requesting new arbltratlon she be 'ras'pon‘slbl‘e fdr the flllng iee.'ahd otherarbitration ca‘sls subje'ct 10 a final determination by th'e arbitrators of a lalr-apportlonment of cosim _An'y a‘rbitraflo'n under this Amltratlon Clausa shall _b‘e governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.s C. § 1__ a! seq )and not-by any slam Iaw' 'c_onc'ernlng atbltratlon _A You and we retain 'ar'Iy.dghfs Io s'elt-he‘l'p remedies, such a's reposses'sfon You and w'a retaln the right to s'eek remédles [n srria claims coup! lor‘ dlsputes. orclalms within that c'o'urt's Jurisdiction, u less such a'cuon ls translarrgd- removed or apesalad 10 a‘ dlflé‘rent.comm.Neither 'U nor we walv'e' ma right t_o arbltlate by uslng self- he|p remedies or filng sull..An'y co'un:havingjurlsdtcilo'n may enter, ud'gment .o'n the a'rbllratqrfs-awa' .__-‘I'h‘ Arbitration Clansagshall. survlv'e any ”termination pay'ofl. o'r transfer o! this c‘onlram. If. any pafi_or thls Arbllrétlo'n lause. other- than w'alv‘ars' of alas a_c'tl'on rj'ghts rs deeméd or' found tobe _unemoro'eable for an“ reason.- .th‘e remainde'r “sha'll jemaln enforceable. Ifaw'alwtof cla's‘s ‘aclibn rigl'its ls' d ed_orfound to‘ he unenforceable ' . for any reaso’n 1n a_case In whic class action a'll'eg'atlons have b'een m‘adq,. the reminds} dl_this Arbitraudh Cla shall he unenforceable .» NOTICE: ANY- HOLDER OF.THIS CONSUMER‘CREDIT CONTRACT .I'S SUBJECT-TO'ALL CLAIMS ANDDEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD .ASSERT.-_AGAINST THE SELLEH .:OF-GOODS OB SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT. HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER ‘ V _ - 'The preceding N©T!CE applies only If the "personal iamily or_ household" box Inithe “Primary Use foi' Which. Purchased“ section ~of this contract l‘s checked In all other 'c’,ases B_uyer WIII 'not ass'ert agalnst any.aubse Dent holde‘r or_ a_ssl‘gn'ee ol jhls pontiact any claims g? detenses the Buyer (debtor) may haVe agal'nsfth‘e Setler. o'r against th'e rhanu actui'er'of :he,.ve'hicle or equlpment obtained . undert scontract. _ 7 - Se1larasalgnallsInle'ras‘llnthh conlmcuo ‘~ " ' v . .;. - “*(A‘s‘slange) al(addrass) r _ : .undsr Ihe latms al'SeIleI’s agreements) whh ASSIOHOS U _Ass|g_n'ad Mihllrnled rio'gllme r r,.. . ,D- Ne'mwhrsswme‘énmp EC! filgnwy!|b¢w~wung,.__.; ‘ _ -_ Formuo'LsswA-Anas/ur' ' ' . -, Case 8:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Document133-4 Filed 10/10/11 Page10f3 PagelD #:2168 EXHIBIT B CaSeLBJ 10-mf-62: WW PagsmaPage ID Dual. um 4.- CmIr-al Numv- _ . c h: 0.?" uK n ( : 5 1"“ '1um. am: Aan-u . co-Buv-n Num- um Adan. cma--uor-sou¢v (w.-m Amanon.” Conan, .m: zap cog.) . (----- «mg Ceumy ma zip Conn. st: . mksmm 1m? , LoNGo 'ro Yo'rAm a s 3 a N P E C K R D EL MONTE CH 91731-2315 ‘mu. ll. Buyw [um Cofluy-I. llman,” um ”hid. Mm lot ash o: on moan. By flgnm IN. oonlrIr-d_ mu choc" tom 1m mid- on croci unw In.a Imm- on Ih- hou ind ml. mnml. Vuu Iago. Io pay m. Cndw- Sunni"(wmm ‘M‘ or 'uu‘ IN: ourm-d) m- Amoun Fn-na-a Ind Flmncuchug. In us luna- uoconiing tom.p-yvmnrm-amam w-wll linur- yournn-nu dung. on nannymu- mwn-tn L-nung Ouch”.- n. pun nl m- comma. N” “III. Uuod m: and Moog: momma vomcl- raomxlbanon Numbcv PWHIW U" ‘9' WM" Pv'vhllld TOYOTA KR p-r-u- _ tummy u: houunolu“E” 301° PVIUS 7 D m-n-uoroommc-cun I STATEMENT OF INSURANCENu puma" h om. umum lo. NWM-mmwm JM-nwmmm I "~- Im-I =9“ 9' m""“""“ ""°""' ' ”mm" """“.n°‘y mu”.WW 1:W“ B M mthuwumbw’mwwynwmu-x n s_ £3 _. 7 7 ta ,Mm. F-‘aYn-nmoan. .o s ___ nusmm “.1 may .Numb" m . Mm..." nu pnn-nu mm... . C)!- Pwnl n! “wm onoM-gmot “V“ .._..._ .. _ ___-___.1 1w vau- In-m humm- s_leW" “-Wfll- - - mags: A ennui .5 muou: w 1n: mueum m 0-. F"... p.,m.n. g finc Lvu-Jrv on mew"W muMl. nun: ' u-a-pu yn-Huiuulw Mmtomunn-nhom. muny-m-mpmuuvnp-nmmguym-um mm, .flmm:::mp“uf:mmmmun'M&mmmuyonwmmmummmyn wngduvi mmnmne- uu-an ym Ifllmm I fl l I‘um mm"! “mid. MW mewm'mmw... mfihwafiz...W23: xvgwx‘mm “M WW" “w m W“ 33MWtLI u nzmunou or 1n: Auoum rmncco (nu: mu mp pun u u- u-nunum In mv-v- I § L nu.- c-m mic. um unu- u-niuu- nun n- I A. Cup. Pun. u» Mono:ww- nnamm. M) n-m-dMm HI fl-Iu-I- In- mm- Im milf- I. Canv- rna- Wynn. 5- . Appucallon lot Omlon-l Cmdll Inluv-nc' z. c m Pne- umuoncs s... D Cum. ml D say" D baunr D noun a. own: (Nam. C] Cum! Diua-my (Iwor own mum. _ ___- s_ tum em. -------~ a elmut- _Mo Vs. _ a Damn-m Pup. um no. (nu g gpmuun-nm 1-) cm Dunn: ‘, Mu c. smugm no sully vmu Ccaun In-u-nu mummy” _ n (09mm; mun Dunno“um «a mun nnu)__._ mum comn-ny mn- - s (w)mumum 0-wa- un Munn- nu) I r. (manna)mu c wnm unnu- no Munn- n-Aa).___. mom.om“ mm... u o. 109m suma-rmmm (wmpm_ _ ___. 8.- c imum. manna: " unmananu5L (Donovansumnmum Imam: lumapu) _ 8-. n'qm,-d.°mlu"m_M'mm gwmg‘“, I. sun Tu (9n unu- uun-In A Imam H) u- .m cum mum, mfl-hzu‘m z. n mm m v- . 7 u h-yJ' W"WV ‘m'm ""‘fi F" nun nu aww- m m. um: oeu- crrml In- "..qu |- n‘ ‘ouum-I) acme- Wu-cv (wmm m)__ nu r yuan: nurdmunrm- . n um on uanmm mu- , L (ouuan-I) s-Mm comma: “a whom pa) ___ :-_ 8.... C 9"“. I W“, .Mm.“ m pmu town...» sonne- Comum no nman- p-m__. mum or 1n nu- ngmu p- n corona. Inga“ M- . mum «nus on g N' ‘W’m", s‘m“ °°""“' ‘”“‘“" 9"“,---7 V w. u-w e: aw uul mum“ uni... . an..-» bum nu mo o. (omens) same Contra: (noMunum___ lb“- v. Prior Cum n Bnlum pun by s-n- m Vnuma a app run lot lho cr-mdll Inwranm rn:n::atum b. (u. ao-mpuymun nu u-uu-m cucuI-nun) mchbd U! “XII bi7° Wyn“O. (WWII!) CID WIIIIEI (l0 Iflm m~_.. dlllbl Intullm. n. (09......) u.“W. r- ... 0mm" gr am“: 3) om, rzh: Pam rum r. on Eh. Elva: v. . I :ma”Bum“5' 0"" ““ ""°"' 9"" alum! lnsuuncm DISABILITY suamh'EEHMAVFm Mar Rocouo'nousfoaTom Cun- Puc- (A wwuv- s) (1) SEENA DOCTOR ROPHAMCTHOH INHTHE LAST o MONTHS Revue"m 'rom Dsuom Cay-ma- In your pol z. Ammun- v-u w ru-na ammu-m 'm Iobuy th- ~- v g 1mm omen: I... (A Iwuum D) l) ‘ " g 3. mum II-I- m Inwuno- comma. --.- n-luro - I m looonv-a nob! mfi-rrom pump". horn mu-m-m cl munc- eohmn o m t t ) figfi finm ' “:fifi': 3-9 ( " '.mm-mu ‘l a, D smog nonmeunn u l: i-unpuon F.- v-u mmu 3.. ' ') WI"”m mmW .o,~h..,:, Ia. m. 5. unmoul (1 mmg- 4) 8, $1 duru- Mylo wmncu c m. .inn-m I om- AmomuMun 3.. m u | l- TO'IIWM!“ commalb: unzmu nu num- ua canons" u pram; II- ' A Aquua Yum»: v. u-_ v-_ ___ Mu- -§_ I I pun mm .ml fl...- “ ___-___ Y'l'h ___. Ml”. _ ___V._ vm ' o0 ans mum u. L.- l-nm Cmall u. kuuw u-um.‘ m) ' m‘ '9 buy " “l” ”MI’IE h c Numun (A nn- s) (Inman- u I n-o-m manna) .Cl Buy" sun. x Im [3w D ___-___...- 'n "’° "°""‘°'“ (i) unsomu. alum. couTnAc'n-p «um Io - E- MUNICn ’ punch..- m-mmam)muWm”; Lu:= mm u upc-' °"‘" -- ’ .na-n‘ ”3:2. m u n. L mum .o o. clu- A ~ 'roI-I nwnp-yn-n- (cmm o, a _ p) mmar _mm wmanml-mm-nmmmvmhw-un unn_ 7 nm u s __ 57) 1|.Cow M .15m.“AUTO IHDKEII "I DBCLOBUR:mm mu.m mu Cammmminus“m um”:- Il Ihl- oonlv-ct nllncl- In. nu" u o o! n hm. ”W _ _ _ N ““-mw motor vohlolo. In. uni. I- no! .ub‘oa! ‘N ' _ _ ‘o u l.- rue-lv-u uy an .utobmk-r lrom u. W”'W-“I M W":- - - un m- louownng box I. cn-ckoa: ‘W'I - “' '- NIIDIIII I _ __ Firm Chain. 1 ___ 10 Cow... _g.‘__-_ TD... . _ m 5,. _ Nun. o. autobmkcr ncolvlng I... u m... .. , hummus o: a ___- ...“ ........ ‘Dwflcfx' "am w: mm- una-vn .... .n co. “ow m“comlfiW- . Ih- nllr‘ y u iELLEu's momm cmcu u Buy" um Mun: lbw- m uwnm alum mum w cm! um:- on "‘4 “- ""““B 9 "“ °°'“"°'» *"Y ”‘lm' '9 ""mmmm"mum nu “mydr- a- un-u- m an um- amm-a m . ununmu mummy- mu .poy, comma MM" b- Ih wmlnn Ind Dom you Ina w-x mum ulgn n, No nr-l cn-nggu .anmau-‘g. Co-B‘AVOI lw' “ll. - n(baw- sq NIH NIH.v-M . nuns mum um mnuc uAllun' lulu“: Inga IN Law aunt II Mn IVIV Mm WM“ Em.” You All: uwuue wumul onMin?INOUMI floucv Mu. cml'n voo- IIWLV numlio vlucLl m vn- [vim or Au Acclaim van WULDcommmun munhucl Ann".m 1. u. p-u In m- m or num- ILILl'g ?°me mam" COLLISION mum! Ola”“v nor Iaovnl Ion rvu, RIMIMIM 0001'. F00 1'”! vlmeu 0m 'uncuA-lu IF mu m“fixmwn Mm VII AVAIL” mmummuu WU! msumczmm on WIDInM TIC! II Ia _ | é‘mU=LmuIUVNI .. I Cm“ :JaiflmW0 warrnnouflu ml In men OIL? “II flufll. U'UALLV UP ‘IO “II Mao” a ‘mat ON '0th00V:mimWATT.-Mu.":8”: _WU "I "ClWW 0' L0. OI 9mm?“WWVMIL'WDMD6mmmuIWWIm.nil Iuvln I-HII I mam!“ MucuAnun“! AND”mtm 2 x T'_'My.o.fl'an;'n on In 7:606“. “l". 11m". ama.??.owogi‘swgflgofiopmfiuml:gunnoyggnl llorn OBmm T'wwln viper“mNEW! mm ust'mz.H I U. flwr hung“ magnum. II m: paw” Irnowz in lu-.at van .munl unmomv- m‘ u rodsor k..."agI-nug ggllor vhl nerona- In ypnuy _n__uy- co-ouy-v I Nol I&- u.r- V . V, .- ,_.: rand II av l“ manl- my hlfllh Apnea. In h'n llllod In. iii;Van In InlllI-d w I comfllmly flllodInump¥ov m‘ Agnew. Vuun-n mun! duo 0nd" "II. roomom I any "ml. "you 6-0:; atriumcool your oblamlon- VIIa a room!“ mo v. chmo Ind Io lull Ind hm tor t ovldcmd o-tmon . nnu nu I nunmaw. |m- nn nu u-u- uy u roomy. u nunm uni wr‘: “hfilw. UMIH =13” :O'rmlm01m .1 ID _IMM h (I‘m- M DI ally I'ID'I-y. n luflfl nl’fln‘ Of '0 III “w N .‘O Mm!“ mfitlrtznmr h on mun may m_- m¢_gp:nsa. “9v human um. uuou you auto. In cumin. no m. Mq‘ v-a n- n-I mu. I. nor- u any ummu, Om .VIOIUIO I WI!“ .1 SI n Tho Annun. - -lu-nI-g- nan- 1..-, w. ounulo with l‘hc 3 Ilor. Tho sollcr may .oolgn trul- contractnnd romln It: right ta rocolvo n port o'tmt o Flnanco Charge. THERE l8 NO COOLINGOFF PERIOD UNLESS VOU OBTAIN A CONTRA“ CANCELLA‘I'ION OPI'ION ' calami- U- tau nu_fivno luv.1 "mflnflfl' o: m in|-you,“umHr mun"un-I mun ub- |h-numom I“lilymmcynnl’mom “abm ulu optionMOMYWMflnm inmnflm um" Buyor gonnlum co-Imm mum - ym nu noun. u- m“... aw- An go... c..-Mflm h." I0 DOV VI. fllfil TN. Q“:m1-I;1wMO min!" MH'II M VIIW.Own Io w ‘lI IM “RING N/A om" 0mm: . x Lamu-Mfl. W Q.- I 1mm u WI! ' bmm": .. "z :cJW' "é...“ " W... .... .3: ““3" .‘Z "'9‘ ”fimW’ ”fl: "13'...' '.-.SLEL‘z'i'flwig“... m m r m. . ..... . m. .. .0. n... .D' “IL BO :1 lwm WI. "ml WK)Dh-flul lmm""- nmiimmr'ua-aor-mruvmm?zm smut”... Wmelmvgungo Emmy.”mind“mummu M “fl -‘ ‘I lflmflum .I~ IflrmmwnlmlN/A /h I DID K DI“ Mill." N n ml.“ Mu: 34w- L o Y A Iy x”- ¥-mAn- m n-‘Ec.”aha“? __'_‘".':... n.""‘ ._."“_’.“..LM' 5:33:12 ORIGINAL LlENHOLDER GJDVGHH AND PAVMINT- lgur‘ FI "c Fln-nc. ChH. on l'h--unp-°A'a purl av m- Amnunl Flume” S. or rnuy r-c-lv- plr191 Ih- Financ- ChurnNow WI WIII Iflplyfl ”ymlflll. Wu may pply anch paym-nl Io mo .Irn-d Ina um-Iu purl ov mo FIn-nc- C". (a In. Ufip‘ld p." cl lhc'Nnou Flnlncod Ind IO olho' muun um undIr 1hll conflict In .ny O'dlf WEchum. Mow II. Dnymom- o! “fly paymon eh pow“«mu puy. wa Duod mo Fmgnco cn-ro- To Puymnnl nd Tun! SDI. Pilc- Ihown on tho hon! on tho nouumallon'Inns you MII mall. every ym-m on Ihn d-y llh dug. vFin-ne. Chnrgo. Tonal o .ym-nt. Ina You! Sal. Pile. wcu Bo Morkomll you ply l. 0 and.ch mo "mu p-ymam. w mes. nngnno. uocor. mo un .y n or part oi m- unp-m any Ilrno. u you co Io. youmum pay m. .umoo and unpaid o." ov mo nnunc. crum- una .u mnur .mnum- au- up uo uh. auto co your p. mom. A- m u» um- ov yaw p-ymcm.gm- r fl Inc mlnimum On-nmnud FIn-nco Charon, you may , mo minimum 1 n nn- ch- n. I-Amwn‘ Fl" no! ngtnol Amour“ Financod i.m Vim or (3) .75 il "‘0 original Amount FIn-neoo t. move man 82.00°. V Ihln Ih- - cu r90. wo wul figure tho #'217E:auvy b II. u mo Annual Porcg‘noo nu. 'bcwozr. “lung m. vchsc r or - ruck u you ca no: gun nun: u you no nunm- wmcu w-w nag you n wnmn noucc lowa wIII apply In. monny fmm Ih- llow..d Dupon-ow- Allowod own u w. Ply .holfl‘ng II. pm.n-rlng II Iov I- nna .olling u. Anorn-y has Ina cuun cou- Ih. Icw p-rmllu a a ulna allow“ o-p-nu- luny mun-y AI Ian (nurplm), we \MII pay ll Ia you unlau lh. I-w Il‘qulml “I la pay II IO Dorman- II... l'nougn w p-y m- moum you ow II you do not p. nu amount wh'n w. u. w. may ammo anwvoot .t m. Annual Pammag. R-to shown on Inc lua- o o cumin: O to oleaod lhl huhovt rm- p-rmm-a by I.» umn you payWHO! w. m. do lbou‘l option In-unnoc. mimononeo. .nrvhn. or o aoM'nuto. Th0. convocl may contain chamoo 9c! opuan-lnInsurance. rn-Inlon-nc rvio av ulnar uonlv-c‘u.h ‘ you pay yo w. on o or w. tapes”.- w. mny clam. a navn- unaar In la carnr-au. and c d Ihom looob r-una o' uno-rncd ch.?gol reducewhllW (1.9." tr. vohlclo. hiel- |l I D I loll bounulll II ll counllflc-lod. dun. Dd. 0' O'0'. w. m.y cillm bonuflu undo: Imo- uomruutu u: mmul mom |o om-In rotund- a! unuarnod crunouo lo roam. what you owo. WARRANTI‘B “LL." DIICLAIMD 01 yon do MI .0! u mnn-n warranty. and Ibo Collar coo. no! n nude. contra“ within co d. "um ‘h- ant. o!mph o no w I: o. "cola?"undo Inovo mo umounm you rot :Ioponlcu run o.NI pfovlalon co“ not Noe! Any Wlw-nlhl oov-rlm th- which .I‘ h2. Voun 0TH!!! Pnou-JOSEII To us mm mo v-mot- mama emvor may avvovldo II In. s nan n. n lh you n conmod «00¢ mule. tho wunnnly ol march." Blllty II nol agro: ‘9 pay u. -II you ow. undo! (NI contract ewn- n :19: ancI-Lmaa. vuhiclu Iu amuyud n-unayuu or mlnlng. S. 0.06 c. Bayar- Guldo. 'I'h- lntonn. 00 .- enwind” Venn tor Ih vmiel. I. pltnbmlon on ch. w nnaw Ion“ mind... :1 wxwInd nan uni THIB coma p '“flnfim lgon'a ho, 6° d hl Iu cmn u: o. n n. u vaorn r- . ovo cuYHATmu ABE LIABLE FDR THE nap AMOUNT An coura- 3::3'...” L: l.gua'mon p. o: cl 10mm a.u-n , u a m.mourn n bo on ma vu m amen char zzaano. L:'_';:fl"“ “3'.“1': vn' . h. Using 1h. vohlul Wu ngm: not lo Iomovo tho which nln ad. On u...1mm am u s. or n-d. rt .mnt. anti or IvnnIv-v contralo d. unto.m m.cwmc our ml-nlon. You rum lo aspen tho vohlalol to m nu“. a. Apultlblo L- izu'o. conflue- Inn. or lrwol far. ll w w. d Camoufl- w .ooly Io (hl- caning: II any p r: no II cleric. bill In fl or ch chlc co.nlram I no! v. d. n omcrp. .y vnliu, WI m.0y a .y you cam to many m. amount wh-n or r gnu unmr mi- contact e. Seen w Intorott wlthouI lo no w. m. oxluna mo limo torw. nu. nucurity 6n II m-klna lam. paymonu wklhoul .m-ndlnu 1h. um- lnr making h- nmclu undnall pan. or good- In-uII-u on I1; omen. . AI: Insurance. maintenune. o'O-rvlcc. o: olhor contr-m- 7. w-rr-nuun o! Buyor. Wu 9Vomluo ou hove glv-n nu.w. IIn-nc. fury nu and corrca lnIon-nauon In ur upnIIc-Ilan nr crawl. Ind you "IV. - Alt am. a. "om Insurance. main! fiance. I wll ma "ml ln'armnfilon untrv nth. Iuturo. other conH-clo w. "nun“ lo you.‘lhi incu o Mb. uuth and occurucy oi firm: lnlarrnnuonmlumn oi prnmlum- m chem prom Inc commas amormg Amo Into contract Umn mn- Ii you w Prowfll v0 wll" Thm Iacvrol poxmnntolollyou ow. on thloeonvacl. II aocurnsnu and alhnr mlom n nmo-ry to vorlfy any l m qr ngr mam. In ml- nontr-e‘ n- th. aw conlninod In your crow: nopnc-uan. mnko nor. mo ml. Inowu out oocumy Vbu w-bv- sh. pvowulonc o! Cum. Vehicle Coda Bncuon Iloazv and d. authoru. ma c-murnu Dopnnmom ot Motor Vahlulo- 'o ruvnlon yourm. “voting Vol. sid-nn. .davou tn un. Conuflfll. THC N you do not cnlon DIIAIILm tnoulmclNm- buy phytic.’ cull: PROGIDUII. h" buy m.” :3. mm cm, W --u you . you mun to» u. right mighrubu urn .nu-Tdm b" ‘h hm VIM Iand om Imam t m uh. vomclo or buy In-uranc- mm 1;“,,:;”t:’"'°'m”‘ ‘°p.:,:,.”:-u'duu'::" 'zwgmflffll‘ "33°... 0y, GOV-I'I Only 0W IHIO' 0 W. bvv OM72? 'YDO 9‘ "‘IU'."='- umpnon. numbor I. gluon vo you In wran‘g.by u: I "~- loc-(Ion whorewt will 1o" you wn-ch tyne any mo churn. you mun p-y. Tn. um “k. w b now”, , w.w I. you wh.,. lo 9.. cm..." Ion“.cham- w I b. the premium tor Ina Inunnnoo one n nnnnce Wu mu“ . ”Md Mn." ‘o "‘. inun‘nc. mmpmy .-Dhuvuo .au-t_lo fin. Annu-C P-ruuru-g. Rail nhmn an Ihc ‘oon 9°. I... . o ‘ou u. .. .00" .- yau do.OIOW On'lo" - "0 "'fih'" 'U‘. "'0 'lw u om omau ny immune. conv- uu a1 you- mlownugg-‘moml-L wfi'O'd-muflfl- V°u '0' ‘ Nnor Tnv ‘ro COLLECT WHAT you OAECLOSE°"'°"‘°"“ '° WU“ W upon on n:P055253 ANY COLLA‘I‘ERAL uN'rIL 'n-msCALENDAR MONTHS AFTEH your urn ml ad pmorw II dun 0E: °‘ unm m. un-uv-neo company oayuo or mbcu your oI-Im whlchourcoma nut w. uganmuuv-nc- m‘ w“ h." .nym mo n7 n..- or .r- olhurwluu In duluullW” '9'" "‘" W. "“V 'Vh'n‘” "‘° "'“"° "°"‘ “m“ W“ wnun yam diumruy"cx-Im.1- mad. or: u untor mortgag- wucn ham°"“* wneloung. I h I a- a. Ir you Paw LAT: on BREAK voun omln rnomaioh n a “mgmzmnnry'a: 7mm. “xwu‘paamczfiwazfiah; l. Wu may ow. lm churn... Wu wm ply.I arg- on n." moo-n‘h“ch ll .ymom n- Ihown on 1h. hunt. Aecoplahnc I I-t- D-vm r" Dr lm- ch-m- do Pray“ h:n 35 day.pnym-m or mom nut you"m kc max n9: m .cogmu‘o. ot m p |-aw P ' WI MHY 3n I hold acacia b: u: nimy cl Irn In um |o o-y-pan duo paymom ov Ch. dIfl-nncuul"‘ ' u "“V om 0' ° V0” b" homon m. plol du- p-ymonll crud whul Ih- In-urlnu mmoany your promluou (domun). w. m-y mm-nd I Y ‘l pay. rerun. pnnlgl atgnulmy pOu-Im-ch-rg-n.Wu a-n mum: u. and you own on IN- eommn .1 once cubluct Io any right 1h. ow w. wm toll you um Aflov ‘hm “NW. wo eon lok- action gvrfl' u lo r.irl.I.I. |hl. mflIf-CI. ‘0 or ‘ o, youm.y hm- °|nnl Ii“ "Win" u In. incur“. con-muny ue-pl--your c m bu: voqudvo uul you‘ Vb“ °° "0 PW '"V P‘Vm'“ 9" “m" um In .aamon norm. lo mmuln gluon coo oonunu a a - Vbu ow. (a .0. iwromnlulo. or m o-alna inbrmnilon an "mum "nd m .h.“ uomp .‘n. ladmo- I on'‘ mqulrod. u on co hot Iona In Ch bm - 04MB m b-MWLD'W 0' ONO ‘I “I"‘d company me mop p-ylng, nan w..wm Inon-a. ugl Ink°' Y°“" p’°p "Y _ any you rn-y hav- alv-w b h o loot» dam Old or Iaoalroy u. oru rt. nny a mumon o n m n comma. .flh'.’ lug". .0 c-nw'fiw .moum you wl I w. will 0o ma unpaid nan o! moAmauvu Flnnnaoa nlun m. .nrncn and unpaid purl a! ‘hc l‘ '° "tm :2.firmmm=$gm fi.:.¥1:$:“;:ilFln-uuc Charaa. any MI. chute... and 01w amour“. dud w, 5.,h' Nwfln mr‘o'mm u cm"-mlw" m_-°‘°""° 7°“ “h“‘wd' nu. mo um»! co m Io any om o! nh-o. You may h-v. to slay oolI-cilon coutn. Wu wlll nay our muiluuon -"hwho uh,” 6°.- buroulm-U. cools Io colloot whll you om. including anotnny mm.u-W w a rfly “nu. rm I vczrsnfigz‘afocloubn Nov" ?Egcy ”y. .”a I 0- fiv- you wrmou none. (o: In a y aim: manor m w Ion' ' S‘s" n ., a" ”“9, m :o‘ w ’“""° Inouecloolvcnioyouywlmhaoa-y mumbam <1 a “k fl: ’v“ " Y‘fi‘.9'° '° "ff ' ‘m'fifm |- gnca Ir r alum ta omen. upon” pa a anar- noun' o” h I ,{gg°“u ”(f-“da '0 Waffiy mun Imm-ulu “y nmm uh- v-Mot. Ia Buss: Io m- om m. a m. aw .M I . "c :0“, ‘32.“. h .u ‘Lucvefflz Iv whon nu. mu. wum .na m-r .nmpmd Ballot mum ow- gaskmga h a you “r“: m. m m m B‘nuk to you nu oeu-Idonuan mow“ by aouor, Including .ny nuan-‘ _. n t o v. o.l w. to own. worm: y . “'m . ll you so not .mm-oumny rum» n1- nNmn. you nn-n u- unbo- vor an.qummm. om: roplnoomom bart- wnu may wlm ma vehicle. ° u .ny nononm nnrrn nu II»: m. yank“. w. mny morn mom "F'm' "‘°"'" ”V "'" ““"‘° "'" V ”u" "°"‘ Wu' "“w‘m" to: you l‘ your cuponu, you co n t k Ior thou. nom-max, w. may mung.- oI mum n- m. low nllowu. 1 “mo m n, , . . .ga‘:m=l1‘:::;°g'm:‘- :".Y:“.f‘”v.9" '2' ‘32::“9”‘3‘ " .Wfl'h‘m ' nma- m-n a. an mu nd you.uun-num. Idol: u tau or9° V° 9" g' u-m-g- ta tho where. van mun pa m-on-u mm- Iar rm.» - w” "“V ““9"" 'm "m" ”V p'Y'"° ”I V°“ °“' at any Io m- umn mo a- - - In 5.:moy h 0km nant to r. a:l- o tnl contract andv-mu- by plying pan a opaymcmn Ina any I pmvla-ng pm! ov tn-ur-ncmmnnwo king omor m: __ cur. In. d-l-un. w. will provldoyou III notlccllrbquirod by ' ‘ I-w to'l-I you annn Ina how much no pny nwar wnnl nelson you mum take t9 rnanom m. v-ruclc, AROIYRATION'CLAUIIOLEABE REVIEW - tnpofl'l' EC" voun LEGAL nIaHT' L EWHER You on we MAY CHOOSE Io HAVE AMY DISPUTE BErWEEN us.DSCIDED BY Aasn HAYION AND NOT KN coun‘r on nv JURVONTRIAL. 2. IF A DisPu‘rE Is ARBIYnA‘rED, vou WILL alvE uP mun RIGHT To PAHTICIFAT: AB A CLASS REPRESENTATIVE one M“:MAV HAV'L‘ Aqus'r Us bNCLuDINa ANV RIGHT To cuss AHQITHAnoN on ANY coNsoLInATrON 0F INDIVIDUALcuss .AIM youAnalTnAT'IoNS. 3‘ macovenv AND morn s lo APtBEAL m AHSNAATIQMA ARE GENERALLY MORE LIMITED 1HAN IN A LAWSUUT. ANDO’YHEFI HIGHTSTHAT vouAND WE WOULD HAVE m counr MAv NOT BEAAV ILABLE lN ARBITRATION An emu“ m m. m wh-mnr m annnmc‘. mu nmm. er othcrwlo (Including tho Inlonmox ‘on .no coop. no mu Ammauon Clanu.“ .na m. .mm-mmy 3F». nun ploy wn-on u u- ou o! rel yum argon npnue-uon.mo neluolno any Iucnl roI-non-nlp wnh Innaecu 0 .Iln or I or n pu o ct emu re tn allo p nnlaq who do no!a:lgn um. cu: ml'd by“ ulnodlna .rblu’ulofl Ind n ID a m It Il-m Provrovl ac Ih-I n culmArum. con Cl. .99" Io Inch clulm or alupul nlm or ul-pulo n Io Dc um Iodc Lion Yau o-Ptoouy wan. ury n m you m-y. urn. a cl... acll u .y choc” ‘vulvaan11:;«gcnn A. n h n ad;-nan A- F:xccr so. Now vam. NV” 10037-4600!ML youbmny chw-c nub act Ia our .ppm-I You m-y gal a copy o! Ina rum. oi "I... org.nlunuoml Dy comm! nu t Iwo I“ a-vlzt'oq b. rune" If pporguu-ofl “O YWIO‘DIIOH “MIC! lhl. Amflmflon G100“ UM" b.um law conuovnho nmnruuonu on. Wu mo w. rom-n tho '19:! kc .coh (nM-n In .m-II chun- ooun tor dllmflo.or ecu you nor w. w-lv. lhorrloh.m-yg‘ugmom an m. .mm-uor- mug Tr. I Io.Aruumbn cunn- anol- I-u-n. olnov Ih-n w-Iwu vl cl... .eu'lon ughu, I- ovaqwomr o! ct... cflo da ~01 Io doom“ or loam to ho onon'olc:nh?o' '07W I .00" In O o." In whh ffllod:..{hc (OIOB-IIWIO DC ‘Hl. Arb.HIIIbfl J... IN.” h. “HOA'D'OCCW-NWCE: ANV HOLD.“ C F TH . CONIUMIR O‘RBDIT CONTEBCOT I. BUN!” 7° ALL CLAIM. AND 'OE'ENBE- WHICHTHE DEBTOH COULD AIIOEHT AGAINCY TH! OELL!" OF D. On BERVICZ' OBTAINED PUH'UANT HERETO 0HW'TH a HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDEH 3V0TH: DEBWR “HALL NOT EXCI.D AMOUNT. PAID .VTHE DEDTOR HIR‘UNDIIR. :he racadln NOTICE n Ilol onl ll tho; ollomlh? conlroog‘ i ch odpzwun lull n'hyr up Buy-r wm no clunm or dnlon Wmiflmww- Amlu. hall b. .l‘rncyl or Inurod [069. and lhlll b. I ‘OGI‘GWFIUORI Io UH.C‘ODONCIUC ’U'. Th. OIN‘VQ‘OI .hu‘l .pplgao-‘Tr‘rnrg-mInbulcnlm InwIn Mlhlng I r.“h. er rlllon hcnrlfl lllb. in ‘HG .0001.“ Wloh “uni. lcrldltm- 1M :I-lm 9| ampuzgl n whlch c. ‘h h Old Ina!h- 1'6 ll.WI "NI GMVUOI WOI .laloulofl W. MII .mlnn. yo .dmlnhlr-IID 1 you! .mfilblor or MB. Mm Mflc: mly b. r-lm "pd by “ohm d lh- lrbltrilnrEu p-r Do open nu- orn:y won nna oln-r o m .n nwr- na en. .mm-tor undor appmb‘: 7-00" mull. 'ul. wn'fl’c‘”Id": lhl. Amfl'nlla CI- ... Ihon Ih- nrm "on. ol 1Rh .Arb'llé'Mlofl Chm. Oh. mtm 7;." o. Mn. .na mnang 0:.“ o o t mu mpus. Mnt m. .rhm-mor mm p-urty orwm c-e o: oiaw Wn‘unm l.'\m h. arty rn- roauou I now lrb Ibo unour lho rut” 09.“role org.nlx'anonImto ‘or Ir: mung too and om.- orbmulon ooolI whl-n m Icum Bylh- FI'flIrII q.)-na mm by any. vv m 'ound c b0 unonio tum"? or houoohola" bo- ln n1. 'Prlmury U C |or Which Porch. oa' .cclbonnon lgllnul an oub- uonI holder o: I no. ol Ihls eon" c1 |- r ng-tn-l 1 n m-nu c ur-r n! 1n. c a or oqulpmoni abuinoas 1h.CkyBu undo! "Ila oornr-cx. ' solo n n u «u m uuu )m (.mmn) ‘ ' a w. u. n . ea am“GA 3033? r‘ ' ‘ n mu nv scan r. umam'm Auo D “umm nz- W63 y‘muqua m mu 1;} Anlgm u a moun- nnum to o‘h J nu. rum Ma. uscA-MIm 'age ID Case 8:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Document133-5 Filed 10/10/11 Page10f3 PagelD #:2171 EXHIBIT C Case 8:10-mI402172-CJC-RNB ' mag;§3§Mfiléd Vldiib/iiwbég’e 2 of 3’ éage itfi DEALERSHIP: TOYOTA 0F RICHARDSON # S: 1221 N. CENTRAL EXPHY CITY,STATE: glcugggsgu Ix 25930 PHONE: 977-723-4400M2 Esau mum CDMHM. 11/10l2009 11/20," "09 Cash Price of Vehicle Selling Price of Vehicle ammo“ Plum Lw Rmmu) " NOTICE TO BUYER 'D-I'HMMWW” Optional Equlpmout or Accossoriu installed on ml: Vehicle. itemized lo the right, “‘- not been manufaclutod by or for the Vehicle manufacturer, and than Items an not i. ‘ ’ Jinn.- " fl." ' L ‘bythe" L" ma- J In" I: s1 LL VEHICLES SOLD AS EQUIPPED UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED HEREIN. "“"‘ I x New Demo Used XCar TruckT rm. mu I2010 TOYOTA PRIUS V‘N colur ' ': __ __ BE IGE Milan. Um VOW_| m n Cash Price wlth Accessorles i LIE DER k CASH Trade(s) Allowance Adam! lefaronce b Cmswmflncod- Sales Tax I Lion Du: MW“ Veh 11/10/2009 0f”??? zsfifiaflffigfiamfim ‘ AIME: I VEHICLES INVENTORY.“THEMGEhMI MDBVTHE DEALER TRADE 1 ammo couscron. m N07 A m:IMMEED 0N TNE”CONSUMER”THETGOVEW NOT var Mm m REQUIRED To I:cmmw“Emsom 'rom: écnwusnT Documentary Fee'- KDWMARY FE 18WAN OWALALFEADDCLNENTWFEE IS VIN CW mWREDWuWWTMAYECMRGEDTD BUYERSFMHANDLM DOCUKN'VSMAYIMSTOMMLAWWmMAYWDWWWWWTOBYTHEWIEB loo: Document m Es nsoumoo ronu LEV.mflco flees”sen mm“;MWn com mos 9Emuo as oocuuemoa ammwcon um“vain UN mommy“ 1) pummaum ammo o: oocuusu-r N0WW canon»: Acommmwon”u: Mm? :su NOTICE 35W Ming- onofu Vllmlm UN NONOMRIOKDWMI NOB UNHMMO OFICVL Wham coca um Imam Full Service Deputy Fee cvzy. suns, mp Hue ‘ Ragiatmtian Fee P1001 0f Immune. rfllnd w mum andmm fins. l Au n n2) I TRADE 2 “'"°' " nae Fee 5 my wn- uml - ‘ i ‘ County Road a Bndge Fee VIN Color ' Inspectwn Fee ulna: Denna. Valalflon ITotal Cash Prlce rin'mm mm 2) hymAnn-m IPayofi Balance of Trade(s) mm. eooaumlucmua GU.SIII,DD Phaln DEF INFORMA‘ION H S R BY H DR THEWEN )u L SNDLILD THE \J PAVOFFG) BE LBJ. THEN THE SEER WFLL RENND “E DIFFERENCEm THE BUYERS}. IF THE 'AYOWQ) IS MORE YHE BUVERIS) AGREESm REMH'TNE DIWEIENG 10 THE SELLERWWW THREE BUSINESS DAYS OFNoflmflm 0FM DIFVERENCE BUYERRmumMD CERT“. THATAW TRADEJN VEICLE MES NOTM AND HAS NEVER HAD A SALVAGE FLOOD DAMIBEDmfiECONDmED 'I'VI'LE. IFSW3 FROV‘DEQ FMS! INFMM'BON. IUYERWILLRENRW ME RELATE m-IN FROM SELLm FOR THE FULL PRICE ALLOWED TOm PLUS NJ. C0575 SELLER IWURS IN REOOLVIW WIS MATTER NQUDINQ BUT NOT uMflED TO RECONDNIONINO COSTS, LEGAL E55. COURT AND COLLECTION COSTS BUYER CO-BUYER ALLW I , . YAMAN A U Ll AN DEALERA THEIRS. NOT DEALER'S, ONLY SUCH MANUFACTURER OR OTHER SUPPLIER SHALL BE LIABLE FOR PERFORMANCE UNDER SUCH WARRANTIES. UNLESS DEALER FURNISHES BUYER WITHA SEPARATE WRITTEN WARRANTY 0R SERVICE CONTRACT MADE BY DEALER ON ITS OWN BEHALF‘ DEALER NEITHER ASSUMES NOR AUTHORIZES ANY PERSON TO ASSUME FOR ITANY LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OFANV PRODUCTS. UNLESS THE DEALER MAKESAWRITFEN WARRANTY 0N ITS OWN BEHALF. 0R ENTERS INTOA . SERVICE CONTRACT wn'HIN so 0Avs FROM THE DATE 0F THIS ORDER, THE DEALER MAKES DGPOS“ N0 WARRANTIES ON ITS OWN BEHALF, EXPRESS OR WPLIED, 0N THE VEHICLEAND THERE _ WILL as no lumen wmrwmes or uencHAmAalurY on Frmzss FORA PARncuLAR 035“ 0" De'Wel’Y PURPOSE. THIS PROVISION DOES NOTAFFEC‘I’ ANY WARRANTIES COVERING THE VEHICLE THAT THE MANUFACTURER 0R SUPPLIER MAY PROVIDE. U" Paid 33'3““ _ . Buyer qma- lhm th‘n Aqrnm-m indudn II! of ma tom and wwmom on Ill pan" of w:Awamcm. Buyer names ma m- , -‘ nnd my prior , Ind as MOI. data below onus Mm any null Imuflmnntum nanomnm or lease. and IN f‘ ’ Dunn , lb: 0nd of 1M nm- a! Inc ngvnmonl rollfinq Ia vu- cum nun": Vortd DY W:Aarnm-m Buyer by rlgnlnn mbAammom amiss (hat helsho Ta o! bull .90 a old-r Ind Immune: lhn henna Msrm fl:hmW hal nmivod I run copy ol lhls Agnemml. H Buyev Ia buying ma Vanda for cash (mi. indudn a Buys unanglng Buyus own flnnncIng from a puny other man dealer). this Mmmont shall become final and blndlng whfin it Is signed by Dealers amorlznd rapmaanlaflve ll Buynt k buyingm Vlhldfi In I u‘dil ”£0 transncuon wml Dealer mcenma ny a sienna r-Llil ‘ uloo _ mil ‘ . only bindingMm I rewl Inatollmorn uh: agvnm-nl hn been Mn exoamd by bum Buyer and Stllar ‘ BUYER HA3 READ THE OTHER SIDE 0F THIS AGREEMENT. INCLUDING THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE, AND AGREES AGREEMENT. BUYER SIGNS X DATE 11/10/2009 Total Charges TERMS ND CONDITIONS IN THIS thawfiMM-d Rngnum Mnmfi) co-BUYERsmNsx DATE 11/1012009 DATE 11(1012009 'REv 1mm vmcmmx GELOVGEH Case 8:10-mI-0217‘2-CJC-RNB Document 133-5 Filed 10/10/11 Page 3 of 3 Page l' i #32173 ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. The fdlowing deflnllions apply to this Order. (i)‘ Dealer' ““us 'our' and' ws' mean or refer to Iho authorized Dealer named in this Order and who becomes a party lo I lhis Order by accepting it: (ii) “Buyer" and"you“ mean or rafer lo the parly oxacuting (his Order as such, (iii‘. ‘Manufaclurer means ma corpotahon that manufactumd . me Vehicle: (iv) ‘Vohzcla‘ is the vehicie or chassis mat is the subject of this Older, and (v) 'dee-in is the used vehicle ma! Buyer inlends to use as part of the consideration for ihe purchase price ol the Vehicie or otherwise is to be uansferred to Dealer. We are not the Manufacturer's agent. You and we are the sole parties ta mis Agreemonl. References in lhis Agreement to Manufaclurer are for me purpose of describing . cenain contracmal reialionships between lha Manufacturer and us relating to new vshides. g 2. The Manufacturw may change our price of new vehicles wiihou1 notice, if lhaI happens with regard to new vehicles oi the sen‘es and body type of the Vehicle before we deliver II to you, we may change lhe cash delivered pn'ce cf the Vehicie to you accordingly H we do. you may cancel mis Agreement. 3. Ir you don't deliver your Trade-in 1o us unti! we deliver (he Vehicle to you. we will reappraise the Trade-in at :hat lime, The reappraised value Will be the allowance for the Trade-in. Irthe reappraised va:ue is lower man t‘ne amount shown in Ihts Agreemenl. you may cancel this Agreement You must exercise your right to cancel before we deliver lhe Vehids to you and you sun’endar [he Trado-in to us. 4. You agree Io give us satisfactory evidence of tine to any TradMn when you deliver it to us. You warrant any Trade-in to be your property. You warrant that me g Trade-in is tree and clear of alt Hens and encumbrances unless otherwise noted in this Agreement. You represent that the Trade-in's mileage shown in this i Agreement ls the actual m’leage on the Trade-Yn unless you have noted olher mileage on Ihis Agreement You authorize us to raiy on lhis represenzanon 1n entering Imo this lrsnsaclion ‘ 5‘ We ave not liable for failure to delive: or delay'In delivedng the Vehicie where such failure or delay vs due in whole _or in part. to arry cause beyond cur control or withoul our fault or negligence. 6. USED CAR BUYERS GUIDE. THE INFORMATION YOU SEE 0N THE WINDOW FORM FOR THIS VEHICLE IS PART OF THIS CONTRACT. INFORMATION 0N i g THE WINDOW FORM OVERRIDES ANY CONTRARY PROVISIONS IN THE CONTRACT OF SALE. SPANISH TRANSLATION GUIA PARA COMPRADORES DE VEHICULOS USADOS LA INFORMATJON QUE VE EN EL FORMULARIO DE LA VENTANILLA PARA ESTE VEHICULO FORMA PARTE DEL PRESENTE CONTRATO. LA ENFORMACION DEL FORMULARIO DE LA VENTANILLA DEJA SIN EFECTO TODA DISPOSlCiON EN CONTRARIO CONTENIDA EN EL CONTRATO DE VENTA. 7. Payoff informalion shown on ma front of lhts Agreement is provided by you andlor you: Iienholder. Should the actual payofl(s) be less, we will relund the difference to you. Ifthe payoffls) is more, you agree Io remit Ihe difference to us Mthin three business days of notificatlon of the diflerence. You represent and cer'jw that any trade~in vehicle does not have 2nd has never had a salvage, flood damaged or reconditioned We. If you provide false information you will repurchase the related trade-In hum us for the full price allowad m you pIus all costs we incur in resotving this mauer indudlng but not ilmlted lo reconditioning costs, )egal fees mun and coilection 00515 B. This Agreement is an agreemenua buy Ihe .Vehicie. - lI_ there is an Unpaid Balance. your obligaflon to buy and our obligation lo seII the Vehicle are expressly oondin‘oned upon you. obtaining financing for the Unpaid Balance. You have two bushess days from the date of this Agreementto obtain such financing. ll'you pay us wilh a chuck that ls dishonored or unpaid for any reason we.may, at our sole option, declare this Agreement null and void and make Ihe Vehicle or make claims against you on H19 check In addktion we _will_ charge you a $25 returned check charge 9, If this Agreement shows [hat any pan of the transaction is to be financed, we may assm In submmlng credit apphcalions ta third pafiies Unless we have committed to do so In writing. we win not tend you monay_or finance this transaction regardless of any nomlion :0 lhe contary on any other do'mment N'o agent. employee or manager of ours can change this policy - . ‘ 10. All provisions of lhis Agleei'nentthat are not inconsisxenl with the terms and conditions of any retail installment sa1es agreement between you and us and permmed by applicable law including, without limitation, the Arbitratioh Clause. are incorporatsd into and become a pan of the remil installment sales contract when bolt: this ”Agreement and me retail installment sales cpnlract have been signed. 11. EXCEPT FOR SPECIFICALLY ALLOWABLE LOSSES RESULTING FROM A BREACH 0F THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABI' ITY IF APPLICABLE. - NEITHER PARTY SHALL-BE ENTITLED T0 RECOVER ANY CONSEQUENTIAL {NCIDENTAL OR PUNiTIVE DAMAGES, PROPERTY DAMAGES. OR DAMAGES FOR LOSS 0F USE, TIME {NCOME OR PROFIT. 12. ARBWRATION CLAUSE This Arbitration Clause significantly affects your rights ‘in any dispute with us. Please rea'd {He Arbitration C|ause careiully belore you sign tnls Agreement. 1‘ EITHER YOU 0R WE MAY CHOOSE TO HAVE ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN YOU AND US DECIDED BY ARBITRATION. RATHER THAN {N COURT OR BY JURY TRIAL. 2. IF A DISPUTE ls ARBITRATED. YOU WILL GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT T0 PARTICIPATE AS A CLASSREPRESENTATIVE OR CLASS MEMBER ON‘A‘NY CLAIM YOU MAY HAVE AGAINST US, YOU WILL GIVE UP ANY RIGHT TO CLASS ARBITRATION AND TO ANY CONSOLIDATION OF INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATIONS. 3. DISCOVERY AND RIGHTS T0 APPEAL IN ARBITRATION ARE GENERALLV MORE UMITEQ THAN IN A LAWSUKTA VOTHEVRfiI‘GHTS THA_T YOU AND WE > g WOULD HAVE IN COURT MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE {N ARBITRATION. 3 If either you or we elect any clalms or disputes arising om cfthls transaction or relating ‘a it, will be determined by bin ding arbitration and no! by coun action This » I indudes all claims and disputes arising out oi or relating to: the vehicle your credit applicaflon this contract the safe or financing of the vehicle and any ccltection ' 5 activities. This Arbitralion Clause applies to any claims or disputes between you and anyone to whom we transfer this contract. wnemer or not they sign _this oonlracL ll also applies to our employeas and agents whether or not Ihey sign this contract This Arbitration Clause applies. regardless oi whether the claims or dispmes arise In contract. ton. statute or otnemiseA It also appzies :o any claim or dlSpule about the I i Interpretation and scope 01' this Arbitration Clause. 1t also applies to any claim o’r dispute ghoul wheiher a claim or dispute should be de‘ermlnsd by atbllratlon, Any claim or dispute is to be afoitrated by a single arbitrator who win arbitrate only your own claims and ncl ma claims of a class of persons. You expressly waive any' right you may have to arbiu'ale a class action. You may choose one o! the followmg arbitralion organizau‘ons and its applicable rules: lhe American Arbitration Association, 335 Madison Ave., Floor “IO. New York, NY . 1001 7-4605(W. 0r any other organization that you may choose if‘we agree to that organization. You may get a copy of the rules cf any o! these organizations by conacting il or visiling its website. The arbilrators will be anorr‘eys or retired judges. They wll! be selected under Ihe rules of the arbitration organization. The amiiralor will apply governing substantive law in making an award. The amllrauon hearing will ha conducted in the laden! district where you live, unless 1he seller of me vehicle i5 a party to the claim or dispute. If lhe selleris a pany, then me hearing wiu be hem where the contracl was signed. We wil'. advance your arbitration costs up to a total limit of $1.500 far filing fee, administration tee, senfice fee. - use management fee. and arbitrator or hearing fee, The a:hitrazor can decide lo require you to reimburse these costs. Each party wilt be responsibie tor Rs own attorney. smart and otherfea. unless awarded by the arbitrator under applimble law. If lhe chosen arbilraflon orgamzanon's ruies conflict with Unis clause, ‘his clause will controL The arbitrator‘s award will b9 final and binding on all pames, except that ifthe arbitrators award tor a party is $0 or againsl a party exceeds $1 00.000. or includes an award of in;uncn've relief against a party, lha! party may request a nsw arbitration under the miss of lhs arbiiraljon organization by a tnreearbltrator panel. The appealing party requesfing new arbltrau‘on shall be raSponsible for Its filing fee and other arbitraum costs, but the arbitrators may decide who pays how much‘ Any arbmaticn under this Arbitration Clause will be governed Dy 1he Federal Arbilrnlion Act (9 U.S.C, 5 1 et. seq.) and not by any stale Jaw concerning artiiration, You and we keep our rights lo self-help remedies. such as repossession. Ynu and we also keep :ha right m seek remedies in small claims coun tor disputes or claims within that court's Jurisdiction! unless the action Is Iranslerred, removed or appealed lo a dmarenl ccurL Neither you nor we waive the right 1o arbitrate by using seIf-help remedies or filing suit. Any court navbng jurisdiction may enter Judgment on the arbltrator's award. This Arbitration Clause wlll survive any termination, payoff or translerof this contract. I1 any pan of I‘nis Arbitration Ciauss. other than waivers of class adion rlgms is deemed or found to be unenforceame for any reason. the remainder wlil remaln enfameable‘ I! you notify us by cem‘l'led maEi a1 P.0. Box 16450. Phoenix, AZ 8501 1. within 30 days ol the date of u'IIs Order that you elem not lo be bound by the lerms of this Amltrauon Clause, this Arbitration Clause wilt not apply. Case 8:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Document133-6 Filed 10/10/11 Page10f3 PagelD #:2174 EXHIBIT D l Case 8:lqéféfél‘i'DZEJefafiE‘cflimi‘fiNBW-Documen aes-Wed-xefi”--'"-.OI11 Page20f3 PageIDT [mime ~ ugcuvugu m; 20855 :2175 077579 AMES 0F: (5'31 3340-4800 w»: . [IARCAR‘S . mm PHILIP LESZEK CZUCHA-JONSKI ---]---°'Ew°'souw‘ww“umm -w “flail --_ LL! LI _ mm :_, mmm_ Asws 36w rHLUtmt KbutJRG RD a mm... '3 mm . 11mm SAN ANTOMOJX 73288 I'I'I mscmim who. (, LAL. U PLEASE ENTER MY ORDER Fon ONE. fl NEW- "w" D useo- "m" D DEMO.- “m“ > WE , . Moon Oman r TWE ImuTA l mus mum cw mus m s-ooon k... 90m qsellumsl WV , v xo-zuuvsnsn DARIA hh’AY WOW JkNUARY I7 2o IQ m I REFUSE TO APPLY FOR EXIlzNDED SERVICE mmmmmmmmmmmmmmuumuwm UCONTRACT cw,“ L_l mmmmqmmmtszmummumm _ [mneem gs £53 nfmm‘mFY ‘Tln‘rw DEALER PROCESSING CHARGE (NOT REQUtRED BY LAW} TOTAL TlRE RECYCUNG FEE TDYOTA MOTOR INSURANCE SR C SF. RV l CE CON TRACT 1W M FEES: l mum . . neelsrmmn FEES_ , mgrezs _= sEcunmrwgncst m Tsuwmms _ = _ NO LIABILITY INSURANCE INCLUDED 101M CASH OELNERED PmcE 4 w CASH neposn‘ maun‘raowwu omen mgr} l 3F AETHRT fi ER}? RE A I' VM E ALLowmcs ran uszocammnem A5 m:nwseo l W Lass BALANCE owme Io - ' ' I fi 0 cAsn to as PAID AmME o: DELNEFIV I DESCRIPTION 0F mua-m TOTAL cfianns ‘ we MODEL m] T RAUE nu: van I _ BALANCE DUE Cufifiim“ME I‘m“ Tm-E SERIAL U0. COLOR WEN W. N0 N0. AGREEMENTTO ARBITRATE DISPUTES Emu] (:lm mum! In Is 'Yw’] am Dull! awe MI n anyDWI arias. II D'npulefl buMM b1M allitrnfionmN amiafll run u an annum- dw-umam by I i I Irhilnw MI: shall ho an ultomoy at rvlhedW. vim Ilufilmlu IMring Iwfinmdeds‘m wilhswab firdnp oi Ila andm o1 hm. Anmid bl Irl uulnlmMM linfl INWu 0n almllos lo In: rm The ubinlu shellawmhl:mhnmmollhl:wcolwmwhnmhlshfllahflauhlnmhwhiaMilbuhdjlmmam wnuwlumasdfimwh Ihlhlu, Earhpanysmllhmpumhh hr il:mm mum, uplfl amm [us witsW byh Irfinflmambl- hw. TMMm my ml mud wriive flaws, Inks: lh- prd'lhl'mm Ih- lwfl ofWalnutsMmm Mus oi lheMn amilvalnr inM case lheMu cl lha mum Imilmlo'mlum! Youwee 1Mdis“ uhllnflm al Ithm my ml beWinn am 1M no dlim llom I D‘spul tkmrn u ulna") my bl Idydaltd ha: b. lh- hni:h normennfion a: I mul ol ulydassufim macaw.mm on In wild maywfled by Imv may in In:WI bal‘ shit. nv idem mm. m Mon my 3&1“:th m- Tha narllel understand ml lh-y m nlvlng Ihnh llnhu to July |th Ind mas ol “mg“! '”WM" 'M fl"m“W Ill clllms and diapu‘u belunn than nol mlcllicINy umplw horn Itblmllon In IN; Agvumlnl. mmmm u o‘- nqu'. aw.m n'nm hauntw qum 'nmmm om,mnu. 5n adaiflonll Imlmuon lam: in pauunml 1: on num. L _ _ "“‘ “‘ “‘- . humwww.ammymuaumnu-nmummvimv-munwmn .m-ua. ""' ' mum.huvmhmmdhmhhmmhhwunvfimmnmunmmdmmu minim:m Humafiwmdhd u om J muvzmmgu‘nunmw Mm” Ebe ‘tmLm hm: ,at tuna bl I us ‘W ' .mmaumwmm "“"m'mhwmnmhhmhn ’ anh-vdfl-M dkw'iwlk w“! Wiltmm M&u-h' "MmmflmflflmflP ‘wEHEflI‘ml‘ 'NLm“ DA $92fiuun COMCNASER GBDVOJU c . " ' P (fl 5m: up- 1 m gr; PHONE mt mu:_-___ xpmfipl MUTHY N NGUYFN 1 I Ewum_, -____- m. noma- um nn-Iu Comm u-n-n u!- \ / ---- Case 8:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-6 Filed 10/10/11 Page 3 of 3 Page ID - #22176 v -- ADDITIONAL TERMSAND CONDITIONS 0F SALE ‘ ' .1 I'unhcv unher ind mud um uh: ad" an Incmm dd: haul u uqm Inw ionm-In.mu Id cmannm' ‘W41":mmnmwu «Ml pmol'quim-nwudud «hick. malcrn-yd'uwnlu pun- tadn; 3. Bryn: I impedwoulu. Naming.firm ndduu-hhm-udhvfiv'ufiklmirnmdw whisk bake"Winmpnohheuuhmwnhuhwmfikhmmmwflcfihflhmum Wdammflc tlpefnununmiu-dmhiliuhllluyl.u.HMMMWRMWMMWQ-fi. .mumivdlhrch, u n mung minorwaudmyapnu hum! hMujma, Wynn”:MI: ml vouch luau. Ml he mundm «chm. lhhrumbcunldimivlu mbmhlb’mfmh ‘ ‘nhelc ' 'cinuq ' 0t ‘ “ u-bmi mu.ma‘nmumwmpnquuuuomnuh.mfiéfikmumm um. incumman flue. unlit nth «inofh nubil- wllitk um I'mh thaw I Duh!MRI.awdthmwfikthflN-mh-mfihufihmhkwdkhmmuw .bc an: m Dale: nun Mnmy or nthw Muir. ID: andm vehicl- my be mild tuba finch Duh Ind lurh Iiml oh; shall amnion: awm rude {n1 ud- uulm nthandt-h vdirk d-Il b: lined ‘II lune Wino u“Mmmc puma: rmmnnklfiwnhkfinmmdwumwm fnfli)md inflimemllm-cfl‘m miumi nde-o is nachnuinwd 5mm.MM“ ‘unflbpbuyufldilkmund. Elam. gh-illmn ol'ullna-nl. Il'nm~nzikummmuwaflsudunmw chum" mmmhflmmmmmdn :iv‘dfl nnufiiua-Uuudsmum fmhiuhn'qt mm im.mmrmvfldbuum-bwhldeulil V Raflw‘ .Wdlhtnfldthflmfiflwm.uhwWmlljmiskdhmldwilbauwl: ~ :jfiommmmc M;(l)hhhfikkmflhdbmzflimmukmm¢(S hillmum: gdngndrmcnmumn )fdlmwidumoflwchuwbmp‘Moflkmmmmmdn bemhtuiu alarmgohawk:ofuumdin‘ntihmcnpl.vbictuykuflupuclyulmhmkwmmcdwmmm‘mmMhumu‘nunmgfllhcuktmmmwmbwmma,mhquw-w hummmbyMW.MBMM3MMwWMWWh-Mdhwbkwvflkmm.Idlnnhmdmukundmmumdmmumahwmtwuflme-hunmhotmw-dumwlkmmummm.bmmorMMLmhmmdm.m&mmflumubhm5 :a.muhudfllupnn{|lucdyhmumm. . . ' » " . vmwmdfiiuwifiu MMMWIIN ‘ whluzmumoratmua munuuuymuumflWM'tovmmHthu-mfl LMn'tutly h u [11.14:‘ . wmhwmrhumeum;um I- Hignlmotlmlitymuumuflnhmrh. . mmnII-mkmbrhihchtivua 'mtfiwinghmvdiclcmhylhhm «unmet nilmuddayiu.inmbapan.lowummflmmuolwm Mumllmd'm. ' .' 13m.Mnuluviwupw‘ymidcdkTualmfliccforhwdn‘dubkkm-fifbduhmuithnnfdoumhdlfl: _nrummedwwwlumuilyvilhmunuhvfldethualhmuflmdmwkkuhRuchoctfl'bc\Ichauumudwusumuyauddlnchumndwudulahammhmmbpflmumwmm " nudbymm,mmleudwholwmnwhmulhbllm ' . . '. W.mwummumummumdwwunmnWdovflkfilfll '{Mcrwh3wly1-Mlun.hlkmMkminuwHMVWumh-‘umhwbm ulna: ’u In mill tug: In u'umumd In. > v ' 2. WcfikméfiufimfimuuhficududwhkkfillmmnMMuuaMDu-hmmm'dncuhubvmmdukumfln-IwcfiawmfiubuhmuhmMkdkloheuhduthkubrlomeflflhfldl munnnh: “.mmddeumhdkMfiWdWMMMWMbfim ,1 uy.intull,u ’IslamudwnmvhzumtwimnfihhmwummeRMHqu-M _‘figmhm.hm«uuMcdfliwdhkahfimmm-JMMBWM ' ' m a - ‘ . . .9, ‘ ‘ ‘ Jll‘fuxhnahfi-m, ' ‘hiumm‘ chin" IbnvM' .Wmm' RWW, “W?nfiWfl-«umww Ifmz'ul'mumm‘ thc-lchtlhumle-kmworhucbmmeMImuDublwm Mulcwleuwl-WM-hhmfiwvaMHW.W,wmmwmwfinnhwmuuflummuw tokDuthhu-m. m‘aafiwumw:vamnmwidiugmy-fqutmduriunwmlmkuomdlhm‘Mlemmammflhfllmflkflwwwahlm’ud’mw. ’ ‘ . , Io. 3311;9va ’ amber)": muuumfinawuduim.nmflyhuuhtemunflrfi. ‘mwmm‘u obelmnhuu wmwfiswugn'ndaflmflqmMumiahcflulmulmmummunpflhul: u. ‘ i ' ~thmnmificubuthw'hakmmbmdlhmnmalhclmgm ’ 3 1. T ’-" ’ TheBoole!bucmbflumhuwt‘mqumohwmwhiclcov :husit.amid minutmet';w whichmmmddiwedwmMudMoummm'h Menu .l a Incl mom wl-kka huhnpplifgh‘l‘ nruuiningmufmhmuihmlmdwhmdwmnm . 8 '3.ch mu ' - um; ' i ‘hl‘hhmskazm M&flmrmaamWJ3“ bdrgfluflownmummml'h Iv: .m‘cmwmhll.ad$u¢mwnmhflymthawmwmmmyuMMumh-th Cufil‘iudMuIle‘M nut - ‘ . 1 w. ' , ~ l).' " "‘ " ‘ ' :Voua‘mflnnq'ufluWuum-uflhm=wn mutant") \ > g upnimiom h Mike Nation!Mien Paul, Bu 50W! ”impala. MNWIN [ m).w Amlrlun - “#33“?m“”3...“WWW‘-"'""°' '°""""""€;."‘ mmud'mm'um ””3” “'-“mumfiu ““33: ‘ac a - - ‘ ‘ 3:5“an 'Wm'qmvacuums: ' wummmm mun _ «acume- ' = ‘ twinn- Mhufln film Mwuamof.”ufluuyhmn minim M'mWIMhmmJtuun-M ImammpumummwFm‘“ WMWH '. 5 ' " w . . " AAm h w" iau'M-mm mhmuhwdmdhm-filiqm _, _ ‘uvmnlnwfiarqq‘hyuuuudmoJ-Imhhmflmwmcmmmmwpum Lfimwwwfl‘w‘wmtwwmkpmumMumwWubenm-hnfiumhm‘hmfigy‘ppvnudhflmkagwmmu I . _, "’3'; _‘ ‘ ' h” ' “ mammals: " mat Much- uumwmhmmm ‘‘PWuWWW‘MIMMflmW' mm“kmwmuwntlmmv _ . :_ sunning; 'uiumamAm'w univnqWinmu orm rupuu mun l!w pd or m: --W. "qM-D w ~~ w l4. K -WL’DIMW“Am!” ml USE VDIICI-Bfl'fll [WORMNHONYOU “I 0N1"! IS MR1 OF THISmutt“!mm” ON TH!WNW POI."”WE ANYWIN VMCLE CONTRA" PWISIONS IN THEW 0F NOTIE . buy b9|¥mflhig mumeg credit comma h mbject to Ill dnlml Ind dcrenm Mich the debtor could assert I Ignimt the ullcr of the load: o: mice: yummu Ibsen nr with the pwccedl hemf. Recovery hcmmder by ’ ; lhc dcbtot shall nol exceed 11w amounts paid hy'th: hblor Ilemmdct. ‘ .- - ~. A .. n‘.‘«n-».-u ..; , v Case 8:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Document 133-7 Filed 10/10/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #22177 1 MICHAEL L. MALLOW (SBN 188745) mmallow loeb.com 2 DENISE SMITH-MARS (SBN 215057) dmars loeb.com 3 RAC L A. RAPPAPORT (SBN 268836) trap a ort@.loeb com 4 Loe Loeb LLP . 10100 Santa Monica Blvd. Sulte 2200 5 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 3 10.282.2000 6 Facs1mile. 3 10.282.2200 7 Attorne s for Defendants TOYO A MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., 8 INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR 9 CORPORATION 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 IN RE TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. Case No.: MDL N0. 2172 13 HYBRID BRAKE MARKETING, . SALES PRACTICES and PRODUCTS As51gned t0 Hon. Cormac J. Carney 14 LIABILITY LITIGATION 15 PROPOSED ORDERRANTING OYOTA 16 . DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO Thls Document Relates t0: COMPEL ARBITRATION AND 17 8: lO-CV-00154-CJC-RNB STAY PROCEEDINGS 2: lO-CV-Ol 154-CJC-RNB 18 2:10-CV-01248-CJC-RNB 8: 10-CV-OOl73-CJC-RNB Date: December 5, 2011 19 8:10-CV-01255-CJC-RNB Tlme: 1:30 pm. Place: Courtroom 9B 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AL'm'ttgfgbfiftl-ggr? e sh' LA2176544'1 l'nlc'ugt'éifizi:i°1arl lp 212799-10020 Case 8:10-ml-02172-CJC-RNB Documegt-2113738-7 Filed 10/10/11 Page 2 of 2 Page ID 1 ORDER 2 Defendants Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and Toyota Motor 3 Corporation’s (collectively, “T0y0ta”) Motion t0 Compel Arbitration and Stay 4 Proceedings (the “Motion”) came on for hearing on December 5, 201 1, in 5 Courtroom 9B of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, located 6 at 411 W. Fourth Street, Santa Ana, California. 7 After considering the papers filed in support 0f and in opposition to the 8 Motion, hearing oral argument, and finding good cause therefore, Toyota’s Motion 9 is GRANTED. 10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Alexsandra Deal Real, Michael 11 Choi, Michael Scholten, and Lu Li’s claims against Toyota are referred to 12 arbitration 0n an individual basis, and this action is stayed With respect to Plaintiffs 13 Del Real, Choi, Scholten, and Li pending the completion 0f those arbitrations. 14 1 5 Dated: 16 Elfiiifiors‘gfetélfii’éflafufiggmy 1 7 1 8 1 9 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Toyg’flgfifififififigfifiqfiléflg A LPtILELgtfi‘tgpflhp ifigfig‘g-ZIO COMPEL ARBITRATII)%1\(I)é1§1133DsI§Ast( EXHIBIT 2 SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP 650 CALIFORNIA STREET 19TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108-2736 TELEPHONE: (415) 364-6700 FAX: (415) 364-6785 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:19-cv-02897-JD Document 1 Filed 05/24/19 Page 1 of 10 STEPHEN H. DYE (SBN 104385) e-mail: sdye@schnader.c0m RICHARD J. MAY (SBN 234684) e-mail: rmay@schnader.com SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP 650 California Street, 19th Floor San Francisco, California 94108-2736 Telephone: (415) 364-6700 Facsimile: (415) 364-6785 Attorneys for Defendants FORD MOTOR COMPANY and SUNROAD AUTO LLC d/b/a KEARNY PEARSON FORD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN JOSE DIVISION) LARA ROSE, Case N0. Plaintiff, NOTICE 0F REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION vs. 1441(b) (Diversity Jurisdiction) FORD MOTOR COMPANY; KEARNY PEARSON FORD & KIA; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Complaint Filed: April 15, 2019 Defendants. Trial Date: None Set T0 THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants FORD MOTOR COMPANY (“Ford”) and SUNROAD AUTO, LLC d/b/a KEARNY PEARSON FORD (“Sunroad” 0r “dealer”), erroneously sued as KEARNY PEARSON FORD & KIA, by their counsel, hereby remove t0 this Court, pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446, based 0n diversity of citizenship, the claims pending as Case No. 19CV36363 in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441(b) SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP 650 CALIFORNIA STREET 19TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108-2736 TELEPHONE: (415) 364-6700 FAX: (415) 364-6785 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:19-cv-02897-JD Document 1 Filed 05/24/19 Page 2 of 10 In support 0f this removal, Ford states: I. THE REMOVED CASE 1. The removed case is a civil action commenced in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, by PlaintiffLARA ROSE (“P1aintiff’) against the Defendants, entitled Lara Rose v. Ford Motor Company, et al., Case No. 19CV346363 (the “State Action”). The two named Defendants are Ford and Sunroad. 2. Plaintiff filed the State Action 0n April 15, 2019, asserting claims against Ford for breach of express and implied warranties under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Cal. CiV. Code § 1790 et seq.) (“Song-Beverly”) and for fraud. The only claim Plaintiff lodged against Sunroad is for the breach 0f the implied warranty 0f merchantability, a claim that is barred by the statute 0f limitations. II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 3. This notice of removal is timely because Ford was served With a copy of the complaint on April 24, 2019, and Sunroad was served 0n April 29, 2019. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) and Fed. R. CiV. P. 6(a)(1)(C). 4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), copies of all process, pleadings, and orders for the State Action in Ford’s possession are contained in Exhibit “A” filed herewith. 5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), venue is proper in the Northern District of California because this district embraces the place in Which the removed action has been pending. 6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a true and correct copy of this Notice of Removal Will be filed with the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara promptly after filing of same in this Court. 7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), written notice of filing of this Notice of Removal Will be given to all adverse parties promptly after the filing 0f same in this Court. 8. Consistent With Congress’s intent that parties may amend allegations of jurisdiction if they are questioned, see 28 U.S.C. § 1653, this Court should not sua sponte remand this action, see Shockley v. Jones, 823 F.2d 1068, 1072-73 (7th Cir. 1987) (“This court 2 NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441(b) SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP 650 CALIFORNIA STREET 19TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108-2736 TELEPHONE: (415) 364-6700 FAX: (415) 364-6785 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:19-cv-02897-JD Document 1 Filed 05/24/19 Page 3 of 10 has noted that sua sponte dismissals without prior notice or opportunity t0 be heard are ‘hazardous’ . . . A dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) without notice or a hearing is similarly suspect”). Thus, if any question arises as t0 the propriety of this removal, Ford and Sunroad request the opportunity t0 amend this notice of removal following any necessary discovery, briefing, and oral argument. 9. Nothing in this Notice of Removal shall be interpreted as a waiver or relinquishment 0f Ford’s and Sunroad’s rights to assert defenses including, without limitation, the defenses of (i) lack 0f personal jurisdiction, (ii) improper venue and/orforum non conveniens, (iii) insufficiency of process, (iv) insufficiency 0f service of process, (V) improper joinder 0f claims and/or parties, (Vi) failure t0 state a claim, (Vii) failure to join indispensable party(ies), (viii) the right to arbitrate this controversy, or (ix) any other procedural 0r substantive defense available under state or federal law. III. THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT IS MET 10. The amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000, exclusive 0f interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 11. It is well-established that “the sum claimed by the plaintiffs control if the claim is apparently made in good faith,” and that “[i]t must appear t0 a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount t0 justify dismissal.” St. Paul Mercury Indem. C0. v. Red Cab Ca, 303 U.S. 283, 288-89 (1938). 12. Ford and Sunroad dispute that they are liable to Plaintiff for any damages whatsoever. But the amount in controversy is met. There is n0 burden t0 present supporting evidence at this point. A removing party’s initial burden is to “file a notice of removal that includes ‘a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.”’ Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Ina, 775 F.3d 1193, 1195 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Dart Cherokee Basin Operating C0., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014). The notice 0f removal “need not contain evidentiary submissions.” Id. at 1197. “By design, § 1446(a) tracks the general pleading requirement stated in Rule 8(a),” Which requires only that the grounds for removal be stated in a “short and plain statement.” Dart, 135 S. Ct. at 553. 3 NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441(b) SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP 650 CALIFORNIA STREET 19TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108-2736 TELEPHONE: (415) 364-6700 FAX: (415) 364-6785 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:19-cv-02897-JD Document 1 Filed 05/24/19 Page 4 of 10 13. Generally, a federal district court will first “consider whether it is ‘facially apparent’ from the complaint that the jurisdictional amount is in controversy.” Abrego v. Dow Chem. C0., 443 F.3d 676, 690 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citation omitted). But a defendant may remove a suit to federal court notwithstanding the failure 0f the plaintiff t0 plead the required amount. Absent the facial showing from the complaint, the court may consider facts averted in the removal petition. Id. Next, if the defendant’s a11egation(s) regarding the amount in controversy is challenged, then “both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance 0f the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied.” Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1195. At that time, “it may be appropriate to allow discovery relevant t0 [the] jurisdictional amount prior t0 remanding.” Abrego, 443 F.3d at 691 (internal citation omitted). 14. In this case, Plaintiff expressly seeks damages in an amount that exceeds $25,000 plus a civil penalty 0ftwo times actual damages. (Complaint 1H] 30-32, 37, 40, and 44.) Plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, prejudgment interest, incidental damages, punitive damages, and other claims for relief. (See Prayer in Complaint.) Claims for attorney fees in these types 0f cases also often approach or exceed $50,000. (Declaration of Richard J. May, fl 5.) Thus, the Complaint 0n its face seeks recovery ofmore than $75,000. 15. The Court may include civil penalties potentially recoverable under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act in calculating the amount in controversy. See Roma v. FFG Ins. Ca, 397 F. Supp. 2d 1237, 1240 (C.D. Cal. 2005); Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1009 (N.D. Cal. 2002); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(c) (potential civil penalty up to two times actual damages). The amount in controversy also includes reasonable estimates 0f attorney fees. Brady, 243 F. Supp. 2d at 101 1; Guglielmino v. McKee Foods C0rp., 506 F.3d 696, 700 (9th Cir. 2007); Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Fritsch v. Swift Transp. C0. 0fAriz., LLC, 899 F.3d 785, 788, 794-95 (9th Cir. 201 8) (holding attorney fees are included in amount in controversy in cases removed under Class Action Fairness Act). /// 4 NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441(b) SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP 650 CALIFORNIA STREET 19TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108-2736 TELEPHONE: (415) 364-6700 FAX: (415) 364-6785 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:19-cv-02897-JD Document 1 Filed 05/24/19 Page 5 of 10 16. If Plaintiffwas to prevail on her Song-Beverly claims, she could be awarded damages 0f $75,000 or more if awarded statutory civil penalties. Even before taking attorneys’ fees and punitive damages into account, the amount in controversy exceeds $85,000, which includes the purchase price 0f $28,455.00 plus $56,910.00 as a 2X civil penalty pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act.1 (May Decl. 11 7.) 17. Plaintiff also prays for punitive damages. (Complaint, p. 13:3.) The amount in controversy also includes punitive damages. Gibson v. Chrysler Corp, 261 F.3d 927, 945 (9th Cir. 2001. When Plaintiff s claim for restitution of the purchase price plus prejudgment interest, punitive damages, attorney fees, and civil penalties 0ftwo times actual damages are considered, the amount in controversy far exceeds $75,000. IV. DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP EXISTS 18. Plaintiff is, and was at the time of filing the Complaint, a citizen of California. 19. Ford is, and was at the time Plaintiff commenced this action, a corporation incorporated in and organized under the laws 0f the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Michigan. This Court can take judicial notice of these facts. (See Exhibit “B,” Excerpt from Ford’s 2017 Form lO-K filing; see also Fed. R. EVid. 201(b)(2) (courts may judicially notice facts that “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”).) A. Defendant Sunroad and Fraudulent Joinder 20. “There are two ways t0 establish fraudulent joinder: ‘(1) actual fraud in the pleading ofjurisdictional facts, 0r (2) inability 0f the plaintiff t0 establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court.’” Grancare, LLC v. Thrower ex rel. Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 548 (9th Cir. 201 8) (citations omitted). This case involves the second situation. “Fraudulent joinder is established the second way if a defendant shows that an ‘individua1[ ] joined in the action cannot be liable on any theory.”’ Id. (citation omitted). In other words, 1 The sales contract for the subj ect vehicle has yet t0 be located, but the manufacturer’s suggested retail price is $28,455.00. 5 NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441(b) SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP 650 CALIFORNIA STREET 19TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108-2736 TELEPHONE: (415) 364-6700 FAX: (415) 364-6785 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:19-cv-02897-JD Document 1 Filed 05/24/19 Page 6 of 10 removing parties must show “an ‘obvious’ failure t0 state a claim” against them. Id. at 549. 21. Ford contends that Plaintiff fraudulently joined Sunroad in this case for n0 reason other than to defeat diversity jurisdiction and prevent removal 0f the action to federal court. See In re Briscoe, 448 F. 3d 201, 217 (3d Cir. 2006) (“[fraudulent joinder exists Where] there is no reasonable basis in fact or colorable ground supporting the claim against the joined defendant, or n0 real intention in good faith t0 prosecute the action against the defendants or seek a joint judgment”). 22. The Complaint asserts six Causes 0f Action. Only the Fifth cause of action for breach 0f implied warranty of merchantability is asserted against Sunroad. 23. The First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Sixth Causes of action, which assert claims for breach of express and implied warranties under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Cal. CiV. Code § 1790 et seq.) and for fraud are expressly asserted against Ford only, and not against Sunroad. 24. Plaintiff s Fifth Cause of Action is the only cause of action asserted against Sunroad and alleges breach of implied warranty 0f merchantability. Plaintiff alleges that the implied warranty at issue “is coextensive in duration with the duration of the express warranty provided by Defendant.” (Complaint 11 46.) The only express warranty alleged in the Complaint is the express warranty provided by Ford; accordingly, the implied warranty at issue is Ford’s implied warranty that arose when the subj ect vehicle was sold new. Plaintiff does not allege a breach of any implied warranty that might (or might not) have arisen in connection With Sunroad’s sale of the subject vehicle. 25. Ford believes that Plaintiff has no intention of pursuing any claim against Sunroad, and that Sunroad was only named to defeat the claim 0f diversity and removal to Federal Court. B. Plaintiffs Cannot Establish Claims Against Sunroad Based 0n Breach 0f Implied Warranty 26. Because the Song-Beverly Act does not establish a statute of limitations for implied warranty claims, the California Uniform Commercial Code’s four-year statute of 6 NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441(b) SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP 650 CALIFORNIA STREET 19TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108-2736 TELEPHONE: (415) 364-6700 FAX: (415) 364-6785 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:19-cv-02897-JD Document 1 Filed 05/24/19 Page 7 of 10 limitations applies to such claims. Krieger v. Nick Alexander Imports, Ina, 234 Cal. App. 3d 205, 214-215 (1991); Carrau v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar C0., 93 Cal. App. 4th 281, 297 (2001); see Cal. U. Com. Code § 2725(1). 27. The accrual of a cause 0f action for breach of implied warranty under the Song- Beverly Act is also governed by the California Uniform Commercial Code, see Cal. Civ. Code § 1791 . 1(d), under Which “[a] cause 0f action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless 0f the aggrieved party’s lack of knowledge of the breach. A breach 0f warranty occurs when tender of delivery is made, except that where a warranty explicitly extends t0 future performance of the goods and discovery 0f the breach must await the time 0f such performance the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered.” Cal. U. Com. Code § 2725(2). 28. The limitations trigger in California Uniform Commercial Code section 2725 for an implied warranty claim is not delayed by the discovery rule because the implied warranty is not a warranty that explicitly extends t0 the performance 0f future goods. (Cardinal Health 301, Inc. v. Tyco Electronics Corp, 169 Cal. App. 4th 116, 134 (2008); Carrau, 93 Cal. App. 4th at 292; Marvin Lumber and Cedar C0. v. PPG Industries, Inc. 223 F.3d 873, 879 (8th Cir. 2000). Thus, with respect t0 implied warranties, the “general limitations rule for a breach of warranty cause of action is four years from the date the goods are delivered (regardless 0f the date the buyer discovers the breach)” Cardinal Health, 169 Cal. App. 4th at 129; Cal. U. Com. Code § 2725(2). 29. Thus, the delayed discovery rule is not applicable t0 breach 0f implied warranty claims like Plaintiffs. Lucas v. Breg, Ina, 212 F. Supp. 3d 950, 961 (S.D.Cal. 2016); Gerstle v. Am. Honda Motor C0., No. 16-cv-04384-JST, 2017 WL 2797810, at * 12 (N.D.Ca1. June 28, 2017); Marcus v. Apple Ina, No. C 14-03824 WHA, 2015 WL 151489, at *9 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 8, 2015) (applying the discovery rule t0 implied warranty claims “would be nonsensical. If a warranty period 0n a product did not begin t0 run until the purchaser discovers a defect, the statutory time limit on the warranty would be useless. A product could break twelve years after it was purchased and under Plaintiffs” theory, the warranty time period 7 NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441(b) SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP 650 CALIFORNIA STREET 19TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108-2736 TELEPHONE: (415) 364-6700 FAX: (415) 364-6785 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:19-cv-02897-JD Document 1 Filed 05/24/19 Page 8 of 10 would begin then”). 30. In sum, n0 California authority holds that a purchaser who does not discover a product’s defect until after expiration 0f the one-year warranty period would be able to overlook the entire period from sale to discovery, s0 as t0 have a full four-year period to file suit after discovery-regardless ofhow long after the sale Plaintiff’ s discovery occurred. 3 1. Plaintiff will not be able to establish a valid claim against Sunroad based on breach 0f implied warranty because any such claim is barred by the statute 0f limitations, and n0 tolling doctrine applies. Plaintiff alleges that she purchased the subject vehicle “in or about February 18, 2013.” (Complaint 11 8.) Plaintiff claim the subject vehicle was defective “at the time 0fpurchase.” (Complaint 11 48.) Thus, Plaintiffs required to have brought an action for breach 0f implied warranty within four (4) years ofpurchase in order for the action t0 be timely. Plaintiff filed this action on April 15, 2019, more than six (6) years after Plaintiff purchased the subj ect vehicle. 32. The joinder 0f Sunroad is fraudulent because the Complaint does not and cannot state a cause 0f action against Sunroad. Gasumyan v. Travelers Cas. Ins. C0. 0fAm., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73013, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2017). 33. Accordingly, Ford believes that Plaintiff have no intention of pursuing any claim against Sunroad, and that Sunroad was named in the Complaint only to defeat diversity and thus prevent removal t0 this Court. C. Sunroad is a “Dispensable Party” Pursuant t0 FRCP 21 andMay Be Severed From This Action 34. Alternatively, under Fed. R. CiV. P. 21, “the court may, at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” “Rule 21 grants a federal district 0r appellate court the discretionary power t0 perfect its diversity jurisdiction by dropping a nondiverse party provided the nondiverse party is not indispensable to the action under Rule 19.” Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp, 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo- Larraz'n, 490 U.S. 826, 832 (1989) (“it is well settled that Rule 21 invests district courts With authority to allow a dispensable nondiverse party to be dropped at any time, even after 8 NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441(b) SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP 650 CALIFORNIA STREET 19TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108-2736 TELEPHONE: (415) 364-6700 FAX: (415) 364-6785 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:19-cv-02897-JD Document 1 Filed 05/24/19 Page 9 of 10 judgment has been rendered”). 35. Here, severance is particularly appropriate because Sunroad has the right to arbitrate Plaintiffs claims against it. Thus, if this case were t0 remain in state court, Plaintiff’ s claims against Sunroad would be severed from the remainder 0f the case and proceed in arbitration in any event. (May Decl., 11 8 & Ex. A (materially similar case in which state court ordered plaintiff s claims against dealer sent to arbitration and severed those claims).) There is thus n0 reason not to sever Sunroad and the claim against it right now. Accordingly, this Court should drop Sunroad as a party. 36. For the reasons stated above, there is diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff, a California citizen, and Ford, a citizen of Michigan and Delaware. Though Defendant Sunroad is a California citizen, the Court still has subj ect matter jufisdiction over this dispute under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as Sunroad was fraudulently joined by Plaintiff. Alternatively, this Court may sever Sunroad and any claims against it (although there are none that are valid), as a dispensable and nondiverse party pursuant to FRCP 21. V. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the State Action may be removed t0 this Court by Ford and Sunroad in accordance with the provisions 0f 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441 because: (i) this action is a civil action pending Within the jurisdiction 0f the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California, (ii) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive 0f interest and costs, and (iii) the action is solely between properly joined citizens of different states. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 9 NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441(b) SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP 650 CALIFORNIA STREET 19TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108-2736 TELEPHONE: (415) 364-6700 FAX: (415) 364-6785 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:19-cv-02897-JD Document 1 Filed 05/24/19 Page 10 of 10 WHEREFORE, Defendants hereby notify Plaintiff and her attorneys that the above- entitled action, formerly pending in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, has been removed from that court to this Court. Dated: May 24, 2019 SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP By: /s/ Richard J. May STEPHEN H. DYE RICHARD J. MAY Attorneys for Defendants FORD MOTOR COMPANY and SUNROAD AUTO LLC d/b/a KEARNY PEARSON FORD 10 NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441(b) STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC 1840 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 430, LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 KOOOQON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County 0f Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party t0 the within action. My business address is Strategic Legal Practices, 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430, Los Angeles, California 90067. On January 9, 2020, I served the document(s) described as: DECLARATION OF ANH NGUYEN IN SUPPORT 0F PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION on the interested parties in this action by sending [ ] the original [or] [V] a true copy thereof [V] t0 interested parties as follows [0r] [ ] as stated on the attached service list: Richard J. May, Esq. Stephen H. Dye, Esq. SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS, LLP 650 California Street, 19th Floor San Francisco, Ca 94108 [ ] BY MAIL (ENCLOSED IN A SEALED ENVELOPE): Ideposited the envelope(s) for mailing in the ordinary course of business at Los Angeles, California. I am “readily familiar” with this firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, sealed envelopes are deposited with the U.S. Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course 0f business with postage thereon fully Dreoaid at Los Angeles. California. [ ] BY E-MAIL: I hereby certify that this document was served from Los Angeles, California, by e-mail delivery on the parties listed herein at their most recent known e- mail address or e-mail of record in this action. [ ] BY FAX: Ihereby certify that this document was served from Los Angeles, California, by facsimile delivery on the parties listed herein at their most recent fax number 0f record in this action. [ ] BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered the document, enclosed in a sealed envelope, bV hand to the offices of the addressee(s) named herein. [X] BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I am “readily familiar” with this firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for overnight delivery. Under that practice, overnight packages are enclosed in a sealed envelope with a packing slip attached thereto fully prepaid. The packages are picked up by the carrier at our offices or delivered by our office to a designated collection site. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this January 9, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. 4%) / Stephanle Khersonsky 3 DECLARATION OF ANH NGUYEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION T0 COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO STAY ACTION