Class Action Complaint: Bandago v. Mercedes-Benz USA

CASE NUMBER: CGG14-538643 DIGBY ALDER GROUP LLC DBA BANDAGO LLC, VS.
MER
NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF
A Case Management Conference is set for: DATE: TIME: PLACE: SEP-17-2014 10:30AM Department 610 400 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102-3680
All parties must appear and comply with Local Rule 3. CRC 3.725 requires the filing and service of a case management statement form CM-110 no later than 15 days before the case management conference. However, it would facilitate the issuance of a case management order without an appearance at the case management conference if the case management statement is filed, served and lodged in Department 610 twenty-five (25) days before the case management conference. Plaintiff must serve a copy of this notice upon each party to this action with the summons and complaint. Proof of service subsequently filed with this court shall so state. This case is eligible for electronic filing and service per Local Rule 2.10. For more information, please visit the Court's website at www.sfsuperiorcourt.org under Online Services. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY REQUIREMENTS
IT IS THE POLICY OF THE SUPERIOR COURT THAT EVERY CIVIL CASE PARTICIPATE IN EITHER MEDIATION, JUDICIAL OR NONJUDICIAL ARBITRATION, THE EARLY SETTLEMENT PROGRAM OR SOME SUITABLE FORM OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PRIOR TO A TRIAL. (SEE LOCAL RULE 4)
Plaintiff must serve a copy of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Information Package on each defendant along with the complaint. All counsel must discuss ADR with clients and opposing counsel and provide clients with a copy of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Information Package prior to filing the Case Management Statement. [DEFENDANTS: Attending the Case Management Conference does not take the place of filing a written response to the complaint. You must file a written response with the court within the time limit required by law. See Summons.]
Superior Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Coordinator 400 McAllister Street, Room 103 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 551-3876
See Local Rules 3.3, 6.0 C and 10 B re stipulation to judge pro tem.
SUMMONS
(ClTACION JUDIC/AL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: MERCEDES-BENZ U.S.A., LLC and (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): DOES 1 through 50, inclusive
WR COURT USE ONLY (SOLO PARR U50 DE lA CORTE)
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: DIGBY ADLER GROUP, LLC (LO EST~4 DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTEJ: dba BANDAGO LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask Online Self-Help Center the couA clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts OnVine Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov /selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a Civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. ~AV/SO! Lo hen demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dies, la torte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versibn. Lea la information a continuacibn Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despu~s de que /e entreguen esta crtacidn y papeles legates pare presenter una respuesfa por escnto en esta cone y hater que se enfregue una copia al demandanfe. Una carte o una llamada telefdnica no to protegen. Su respuesta por escrito time que ester en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la torte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda user pare su respuesta. Puede encontrarestos formularios de /a torte y mks informaciBn en e! Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en !a torte que le quede mks cerca. Si no puede pager la cuota de presentacibn, pida at secretario de /a mite que le de un formulario de exencidn de pago de cuotas. Si no presents su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y /a torte le pods quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mes advertencia. /amar a un servicio de Hay olros requisitos legates. Es recomendable que Ilame a un abogatlo inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede l remisidn a abogados. Si no puede pager a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos pare obtener serv~cros legates gratuitos de un en el sitio web de lucro California Lega! Services, sin fines de programs de servicios legates sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centia de Ayuda de !as Corfes de California, (wuvw.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniendose en contacto con la code o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la torte time derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los coslos exentos poi imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier 2cuperaci6n de $i0,0006 m9s de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesidn de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pager el gravamen de la torte antes de que fa torte pueda desechar el caso.
e name an a ress o t e cou IS: (EI Hombre y direccibn de !a code es); SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NUMBER'
rN~ma~aer 9~0~ ~, 1 ~ _ G ~ O ~~ ~~ ~ J O
County of.San Francisco 400 McAllister Street San Francisco, California 99102 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El Hombre, la direccidn y el numero de telefono de!abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no time abogado, es): (415) 673-4800 (415) 771-5845 ANTHONY L. LABEL, N0. 205920 THE VEEN FIRM, P.C. P.O. Box 7296 ~~.~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~r~~~T San Francisco, CA 99120-7296
Clerk, by (~Fecha) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).) (Para prveba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons,(POS-070)). NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served SEAL) ~. ~ as an individual defendant. 2.0 as the person sued under the fictitious name of (speci/y):
.APR 1 4 Z0~4
~,1 ~
''a p.' E
~ ~
~ > ~ ~,~ ,
3. ~ on behalf of (specify): CCP 416.60(minor) under: 0CCP 416..10 (corporation) [~ CCP 416.70 (conservatee) 0CCP 416.20(defunct corporation) CCP 416.90 (authorized person) 0CCP 416.40 {association or partnership) other (specify): 1 or+ ~1 by personal delivery on (date):
Form Adopted for MarWafory Use Judicial Council of California SUM100 (Rev. July 1, 2009]
SUMMONS
SU Ut QI1S f7. Tali ie
Code of Gvil Procedure 472.20, 465
;:~; -x,~
~~C~k
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
THE VEEN FIRM,P.C. William L. Veen(Bar No.043150) Anthony L. Label (Bar No. 205920) Steven A. Kronenberg(Bar No. 215541) 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 220 San Francisco, CA 94102 P.O. Box 7296 San Francisco, CA 94120-7296 Tel: (415)673-4800 Fax: (415)771-5845 CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP Jonathan E. Gertler(Bar No. 11 1531) Dan L. Gildor(Bar No. 223027) Samuel P. Cheadle(Baz No. 2685'95) 42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, California 94941 Tel: (415)381-5599 Fax: (415)381-5572 Attorneys for Plaintiff Digby Adler Group, LLC and the Proposed Class
!4 APR 14 Ay ~: 1
~_-
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION DIGBY ADLER GROUP,LLC, dba BANDAGO LLC,on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, ) Ca~ No~ ~ ~ ~ R ) ~ CLASS ACTION ~ ~
COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY;PRODUCT LIABILITY,FRAUDULENT MERCEDES-BENZ U.S.A., LLC;and DOES ) CONCEALMENT,AND UNFAIR 1 through 50, inclusive, ) BUSINESS PRACTICES v. Defendants. ~ 1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
24 25 26 27 28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT;DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
i) ., E~'
~~ ~%
'~
1 2 3
Plaintiff DIGBY ADLER GROUP,LLC,dba BANDAGO,LLC(`Bandago"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, hereby complains against Defendant MERCEDES-BENZ U.S.A., LLC ( "Mercedes" or "Defendant ")and DOES 1 through 50, and
4 ~ alleges as follows: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. 1. INTRODUCTION This is a class action brought against Mercedes-Benz U.S.A on behalf of Plaintiff
and all others who haveat any time in the four years preceding the filing of this action through such time as this action is pendingpurchased Sprinter 2500 and Sprinter 3500 model vans(the "Sprinter")in California that were designed and manufactured by Mercedes-Benz and were equipped with a Rear Roof Air Conditioning Package ( "alc unit ") 2. The Sprinter vans equipped with the aIc unit experience water leaks that damage
the vehicles, including the ceiling, floorboards, seat cushions, and upholstery, and causes mold to form inside the affected vehicles. The leaks also damage cargo and anything else being transported in the vehicles. 3. Mercedes warrants each of the Sprinter vans it manufactures and sells against
defects in material, workmanship, or factory preparation. Notwithstanding the fact that these leaks have occurred within the warranty period, Defendant has nonetheless failed to treat the leaks ~ as covered by Defendant's three-year/36,000 mile standard express warranty, causing Plaintiff and members ofthe Class to pay for the vehicle repairs. Moreover, Defendant has known about propensity of the a/c units to leak water into the interior ofthe vans but has failed to either recall Sprinter vans to address the leaks, alter its manufacturing processes and/or materials, or refund any repair costs that Plaintiff and members ofthe class have incurred as a result ofthe leaks. 4. Plaintiff brings this class action to remedy Defendant's ongoing unfair business
practices and to compensate class members for the money they have had to expend to repair the leaks and the damage caused by the leaks. PARTIES Plaintiff Bandago is a limited liability company registered in California with its
principle place of business in San Francisco.

2 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
6.
Defendant Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., LLC is a limited liability company organized
under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Montvale, New Jersey. Mercedes is registered to conduct business in California and has dealerships throughout the state, including several in San Francisco County. 7. Defendants DOES 1 through 50 are persons or entities whose true names and
capacities are presently unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues them by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that each of the fictitiously named defendants perpetrated some or all ofthe wrongful acts alleged herein, is responsible in some manner for the matters alleged herein, and is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this complaint to state the true names and capacities of such fictitiously named defendants when ascertained. 8. At all times mentioned herein, each named defendant and each DOE defendant
was the agent or employee of each of the other defendants and was acting within the course and scope of such agency or employment and/or with the knowledge, authority, ratification and consent ofthe other defendants. Each defendant is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff and to the members of the proposed Class. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. This Court has jurisdiction over this controversy because Plaintiff is registered in
California, Defendant regularly conduct business in California, the claims asserted by Plaintiff are governed by the laws of the State of California, and the injuries resulting from Defendant's wrongful conduct were suffered in California. 10. Venue is appropriate in this judicial district because Plaintiffs principal place of
business is in San Francisco and because Defendant has not designated a principal place of business in California. Defendant regularly conducts business in and has multiple dealerships in San Francisco County. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 11. Bandago's business centers on renting Sprinter vans to clients, many of whom are
touring bands and musicians. Bandago's founder and CEO, Sharky Laguana, drove versions of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
the Sprinter while touring in a band around Europe. Based on this personal experience, Bandago has adopted the Sprinter as its flagship vehicle in its rental fleet. The Sprinter is unique in that it is the only vehicle of its size in the United States, with features that align perfectly with Bandago's clients' needs. Specifically, the Sprinter can have a separate cargo hold to keep safe musical equipment worth upwards of one hundred thousand dollars. The Sprinter is also tall enough to stand up in, which is important to clients who spend a lot oftime around a group of people in tight quarters. 12. Prior to 2006, Bandago's fleet did not include any Sprinter vans. Bandago,
however, noted a need for such a vehicle among its clientele. In deciding whether to invest in adding Sprinter vans to its fleet, Bandago did its research. Mr. Laguana researched the Sprinter on the web,including Mercedes' own website. He "googled" the Sprinter and found that the reviews were largely favorablethat the Sprinter had high marks for ease of use, good fuel economy, drivability, and comfort. Once he got a fleet number, he received written material, including a detailed booklet about the Sprinter. Mr. Laguana read this material with great interest given that Bandago was contemplating a large investment in the vans with no track record for whether clients would be willing to pay the extra amount necessary to break even given the high cost ofthe vehicles. 13. Through his research, Mr. Laguana concluded that the Sprinter vansdesigned
and manufactured by Mercedes, with a corresponding price tag~pitomized "German engineering" and quality. Mercedes in fact intends the Sprinter to be the best commercial vehicle in its segment, and says so on its website and marketing materials. Mercedes also touts on its website and its marketing materials the awards that the Sprinter has received, including three 2013 Best Fleet Value in AmericaTM awards. Mr. Laguana's research, combined with Mr. Laguana's personal experience with the Sprinter in Europe, led Bandago to invest heavily in Sprinter vans for its fleet. Mr. Laguana noted that each Sprinter van comes with a 3 year/36,000 mile warranty that expressly "covers the cost of all parts and labor needed to repair any item on your Sprinter vehicle when it left the manufacturing plant that is defective in material, workmanship or factory preparation." Mr. Laguana and Bandago believed that based on the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
warranty, any problems they would experience with the Sprinter vans would be fixed by Mercedes. 14. Mercedes released a second generation Sprinter van in the United States in 2007.
One ofthe options that comes standard on the particular "passenger" configuration that Bandago purchases is the a/c unit. This high-performance air conditioning system is fitted in front ofthe sunroof aperture over the van's rear compartment. It is driven by its own compressor. The roofmounted unit also extends some way into the interior of the vehicle and supplements the cooling provided by standard front air conditioning system. Mercedes particularly recommends the a/c unit for vehicles used in hot climates so that rear passengers can individually adjust the air outlets for improved comfort and well being. Mercedes installs the a/c unit prior to distribution and sale ofthe vans to the public. 15. It was only after Bandago incorporated the second generation Sprinter with the a/c
unit into its fleet that Bandago began to notice that vans were being plagued by water leaking in and around the a/c unit. For instance, Plaintiff purchased at least 97 Sprinter vans between January 2010 and January 2014. At least 45 ofthose vans have experienced leaks in and around the a/c unit. While some leaks occurred after steady rain, others have occurred after the unit was run at its coldest setting with high blower settings. The leaks have damaged the vehicles as well as the cargo being transported in the vehicles. 16. Bandago had not experienced any such problems with any ofthe previous-
20 ~ generation model vans in its fleet. Given that Bandago's vans are dispersed across the United 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 States and that Bandago does not maintain centralized repair records, it took a while before Bandago realized that the leaks were occurring across the fleet. 17. Though Bandago's previous generation Sprinter vans did not experience leaks,
they did experience issues with the turbo resonator that caused the van's on-board computer to switch into "limp home" modea mode that limits the van to 45 mph. Once Mercedes was made ~ aware of this problem, Mercedes fixed it in the following model year 18. Based on this experience, Bandago believed that the leaks in the second generation
vehicles would be handled in a similar manner, with a fix coming in the next model year.
s
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Bandago arranges its purchases such that it orders all of the new vehicles to be added to its fleet in 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a given year at the same time. As such, each purchase covers a new model year. 19. Once Bandago realized that the second generation Sprinter had a propensity to
develop leaks in and around the a/c unit, and after leaks occurred in the following model year such that Bandago realized that the problem had not been fixed, Bandago reached out to DaimlerChrysler. At all times, Mercedes has repeatedly assured Bandago that it was aware ofthe problem and was issuing fixes to resolve the problem in the future. For instance, in 2009, Eric Gierst, Daimler-Chrysler's Regional Fleet Service Manager, issued a "fix" that was supposed to resolve the problem of leaks occurring. It seemed to Bandago that Daimler-Chrysler was on top of the problem, and so Bandago continued to purchase Sprinter vans to add to its fleet. This was repeated with each model year, with Bandago complaining to Mercedes of the problem, and Mercedes reassuring Bandago that they were aware of the problem and issuing fixes. These reassurances included a series of communications between Gale Young, Mercedes' senior engineer in the United States, and Mr. Laguana in August and September 2013. Mr. Young represented that Mercedes had identified the issue, that the issue had been fixed, and that the a/c units would not leak in the future. 20. The problems that Plaintiff has experienced with the Sprinter vans are not a
localized phenomenon. Sprinter van owners and lessees across the United States have reported leaks in or around the a/c unit that have necessitated costly repairs and replacement of damaged cargo. Many of these individuals have called Mercedes' consumer complaint line or advised their dealership ofthe problem when attempting warranty repairs. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Mercedes tracks customer calls as well as feedback from dealerships and other repair facilities, as well as online forums dedicated to the Sprinter vans, like sprinter-source.com, that catalog multiple complaints by owners about leaks in or around the a/c unit. Members of Plaintiffs staff have contacted Mercedes' Customer Assistance Center
26 ( "CAC")on multiple occasions to _complain about leaks in and around the a/c unit. Plaintiff is 27 28 informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Mercedes also maintains a database regarding warranty service requests and tracks the sale of replacement parts ordered in attempting G
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
to make repairs to stop the leaks. Together, the available data demonstrate that an inordinate number of Sprinter vans have experienced leaks in or around the a/c unit, particularly when compared to other Sprinter vans without the a/c unit. In this connection, the National Highway Transportation Safety Agency ( "NHTSA")has at least six complaints on file regarding such leaks from as early as 2007the year that Mercedes introduced the second generation Sprinter models. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Mercedes tracks and monitors complaints filed with NHTSA and has known about the leaks since at least the time that these complaints were filed. Based on the complaints, Mercedes has conducted investigations into the causes ofthe leaks and potential fixes. These investigations have resulted in the issuance of several technical service bulletins to repair facilities detailing the steps to take to address leaks in and around the a/c unit in Sprinter vans, including at least one such bulletin issued in 2010. 21. At all relevant times, Mercedes knew or should have known that having water
enter the interior of Sprinter vans through the a/c unit was inconsistent with the reasonable expectations of Sprinter purchasers. Defendant in fact markets the entire line of Sprinter Vans as "a testament" to Mercedes-Benz's expertise in developing vehicles that make working easier, safer, and more efficient, that continue "to set the industry standards for reliability and technological advancement." The leaks are also inconsistent with the promises set forth in Mercedes' new vehicle warranties issued with the Sprinter vans. Despite this knowledge, Mercedes installed the a/c units on the Sprinter vans and knowingly and purposefully failed to disclose the defective qualities ofthe a/c units to purchasers of Sprinter vans. Mercedes also denied coverage under the Sprinter express warranty to repair damage caused by the defectively installed and sealed a/c units. 22. Despite the fact that Mercedes has known about the propensity for the a/c unit to
leak water into Sprinter vans, Mercedes has not honored the warranty. For instance, Plaintiffls Sprinter van with VIN WDZPE8CDXD5744016experienced aleak at approximately 11,242 miles. Plaintiff was charged $487.77 for the repairs. Plaintiff's 2012 van with VIN WDZPE8CD005668112 experienced a leak at 32,499 miles, was charged 891.11 for the repairs, only to have the same van experience the leak again. Plaintiff's 2011 van with VIN
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ,~ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
WDZPE8CD4B5573244 also experienced multiple leaks and was charged $709.40 and $500.64, respectively, for the repairs. These are not isolated incidents. They are the rule, rather than the exception, in Plaintiffs' fleet. Given the nature of Plaintiff's business, the leaks occur all across the country in locations that present limited options on dealerships that will handle his repairs and get his vans back on the road quickly. Plaintiff cannot sacrifice the time and business of his customers to negotiate with Mercedes dealerships that refuse to repair the defect under warranty. Sprinter owners and lessees in California have similarly been denied warranty service for leaks in and around the a/c unit. 23. In light of multiple reports of leaks in and around the a/c unit to Mercedes and
government regulators, as well as the other sources of information available to Mercedes regarding repairs and replacements, Mercedes had exclusive knowledge that was superior to that available to the general public. Mercedes should have disclosed the defect and the fact that the a/c units had a propensity to leak water into the interior ofthe van that would damage the vehicle and cargo being transported. But Mercedes did not do this in any of the publicly-viewable brochures and other online materials on Mercedes' official website that Plaintiff reviewed prior to purchasing the Sprinter vans. Notably, technical service bulletins are not generally available to the public. 24. Plaintiff designed his business model around the Mercedes Sprinter passenger van,
providing high-end vehicles for bands on tour. At the time, there were no other vehicles with a comparable body style being sold in the U.S. Throughout the class period, Plaintiff relied on Mercedes' express warranty that the vehicles he purchased were free of defects. Once Plaintiff learned that the a/c unit leaks in his fleet of Sprinter vans were a recurring problem, it was too late to change his entire business model, marketing, and promotion. Even though Plaintiff knew that some of his vehicles had developed leaks, he nonetheless continued to rely on Mercedes' reputation and the lack of any acknowledgment on Mercedes' part that the leaks were the result of a defect in the design of the a/c unit or its manufacture and installation. Had Mercedes disclosed that the leaks were the result of a defect in the design ofthe a/c unit or its manufacture and installation, Plaintiff would not have adopted the Sprinter as its flagship vehicle and continued to
s
1 2
purchase the vehicles that Bandago, which due to its financing arrangements, would not be able to sell on the market for at least three years. At the very least, Plaintiff would not have agreed to
3 ~ ~ pay as much for the defective vans. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 25. TOLLING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS The causes of action alleged herein accrued upon discovery of the unacceptably
high susceptibility ofthe a/c units to leak. The leaks generally occur after heavy rains or other significant exposures to moisture, including using the unit at its maximum settings. Consequently, owners and lessees may not experience the leak if the vehicle is not exposed to conditions that cause the defect to manifest. Plaintiff and members of the class did not discover and could not have discovered the factual bases oftheir claims through the exercise ofreasonable diligence because Mercedes knowingly and actively concealed the facts alleged herein. By virtue of Mercedes' actions, Plaintiff and members of the class have been kept ignorant of vital information essential to the pursuit of these claims, without any fault or lack of diligence on their part. 26. Despite the fact that Mercedes knew or should have known about the defects in the
16 ~ a/c unit, it failed to inform Plaintiff and members ofthe class ofthese facts. 17 18 19 20 21 27. Mercedes was and is under a continuous duty to disclose to Plaintiff and members
ofthe class material information regarding the defects in the a/c unit. The susceptibility to leaks is material information that a reasonable purchaser would consider important when selecting a van to carry people and cargo. 28. Since Plaintiff and members ofthe class had no way of knowing or suspecting the
22 ~ a/c units were defective and were highly susceptible to leaking, Defendant is estopped from 23 24 25 ~, 26 27 29. relying on any statute of limitations in its defense ofthis action. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
section 382 on behalf of California residents who purchased or leased a Sprinter van in California in the four years preceding the filing ofthis action that either a) came equipped with an a/c unit,
~:~ or b) had an a/c unit installed by Mercedes after purchase or lease.

9 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT;DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
30.
Excluded from the Class are: (a) officers, directors, and employees of Mercedes-Benz, its subsidiaries, affiliates, and any entity in which Mercedes-Benz has a controlling interest, authorized Mercedes-Benz dealers and any legal representative, heir, successor, or assignee of Mercedes-Benz; (b) counsel, and the immediate families of counsel, who represent Plaintiff in this action; (c) (d) the judge presiding over this action; jurors who are impaneled to render a verdict on the claims alleged in this action; and (e) any individual asserting claims for personal injury that resulted from leaky roof-mounted air conditioning units.
31.
The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all claims would be
impracticable. While the exact number of class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant has sold thousands of Sprinter vans with the roof-mounted air conditioning units in California. 32. Members of the class will be readily identifiable from Mercedes-Benz's business
records, which will demonstrate the individuals who purchased or leased Sprint vans, as well as those who have been denied warranty service for damage caused by leaking a/c units. The disposition oftheir claims through this class action will benefit both the parties and the Court. Class members may be notified ofthe pendency ofthis action by published and/or mailed notice. 33. There is awell-defined community of interest in the questions oflaw and fact
affecting the parties represented in this action. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members ofthe class. These common questions predominate over the questions affecting only individual class members. They include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Whether the leaks in and around the a/c unit are the result of a design defect;
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 34.
(b)
Whether the leaks in and around the a/c unit are the result of a manufacturing defect;
(c)
Whether Mercedes has made and will continue to make false and/or misleading statements of fact or has omitted and will continue to omit material facts to members ofthe class and the public concerning the a/c umt;
(d)
Whether Mercedes' false and/or misleading statements of fact and concealment of material facts concerning the propensity of the a/c units to leak water into the vehicles were likely to deceive the public;
(e)
Whether Mercedes concealed from Plaintiff and members of the class that the a/c units do not conform to Mercedes' product specifications regarding leaks;
(~
Whether by requiring Plaintiff and members of the class to pay for repairs arising from leaks in and around the a/c unit Mercedes has breached an express warranty;
(g)
Whether, as a result of Mercedes' misconduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff and members of the class are entitled to damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and other remedies, and, if so, the amount and nature of such relief.
Plaintiff's claims are typical ofthe claims ofthe other members of the class.
Mercedes' conduct has caused Plaintiff and members ofthe class to sustain the same or substantially similar injuries and damages. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to the interests of the other members ofthe class. Plaintiff and all members ofthe class have sustained economic injury, including ascertainable loss and injury in fact, arising out of Mercedes' violations of law as alleged herein. 35. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the
members ofthe class. Plaintiff is a member of the class and does not have any conflict of interest with other class members. Plaintiff has retained and is represented by competent counsel who are
~t
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
experienced in complex class action litigation, including automobile warranty and consumer class actions such as the present action. 36. The nature ofthis action makes a class action the superior and appropriate I
procedure to afford relief for the wrongs alleged herein. Because the damages suffered by the individual class members are small compared to the expense and burden of litigation, it would be impracticable and economically unfeasible for class members to seek redress individually. The prosecution of separate actions by the individual class members, even if possible, would create a risk ofinconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members against Defendant, and would establish incompatible standards of conduct. Further, a class action is in the interests ofjustice because many class members are likely unaware that Defendant's conduct is illegal, and lack the financial and informational resources to protect their rights. Prosecution of this case as a class action would present far fewer management difficulties and provide the benefits of single adjudication, including economy of scale and comprehensive supervision by a single court. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Express Warranty) 37. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs alleged above as if fully set forth herein. Defendant expressly warranted that Sprinter vans would be free from defects in
17 38. 18 material, workmanship or factory preparation and that it would cover "the cost of all parts and 19 labor needed to repair any item on your Sprinter vehicle." Plaintiff relied on the warranty in 20 purchasing the Sprinter vans. Had the Sprinter vans not been warranted, Plaintiff would not have 21 purchased the vans and/or not have agreed to pay as much for the vans as he did. 22 39. 23 workmanship, and/or factory preparation; the Sprinter vans would experience water leaks through 24 the a/c units. Investigations. by Mercedes and the technical service bulletins issued by Mercedes 25 state that the leaks can be caused by improper installation of the a/c unit and defects in the sealant 26 and/or the installation of the sealant used around the a/c unit. 27 28
t2 CLASS ACT10N COMPLAINT;DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
The Sprinter vans sold to Plaintiff and the class were defective in material,
40. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 42. 16 43. 17 18
When Plaintiff and members of the class presented their Sprinter vans to Mercedes
for repairs associated with leaks in and around the a1c unit, within the warranty period, Mercedes declined to conduct the repairs unless Plaintiff and members ofthe class paid for those repairs. Plaintiff and members of the class performed everything on their part as required in Mercedes' express warranties and timely notified Mercedes ofthe defect. Notwithstanding these notices, Mercedes has failed and declined to acknowledge responsibility for the defect or otherwise cause the appropriate repairs to be made. Plaintiff and members ofthe class instead had to pay to repair the damage caused to the vehicle at their own expense. 41. By reason of Defendant's breach of its express warranties, and Plaintiff and the
class' inability to experience the full use and enjoyment oftheir vehicles because ofthe aforementioned breaches, Plaintiff and the class have had to pay for costly and time-consuming repairs to their Sprinter vans, often on multiple occasions, all to their damage. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Product Liability) Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs alleged above as if fully set forth herein. In California, a manufacturer may be held strictly liable in tort for placing a
product on the market that is defective and that causes damage to property, including damage to other parts of the product. (Jimenez v. Super. Ct. (2002)29 Cal.4th 473, 483.) 19 44. 20 units on the market in California for the public to purchase. 21 45. 22 the Sprinter vans would experience water leaks through the a/c units. Investigations by Mercedes 23 and the technical service bulletins issued by Mercedes state that the leaks can be caused by 24 improper installation of the a/c unit and defects in the sealant and/or the installation of the sealant 25 used around the a/c unit. 26 27 28
Mercedes has, since at least 2007, manufactured and placed Sprinter vans with a/c
These vans were defective in material, workmanship, and/or factory preparation;
1 2 3 4
46.
The vehicles also manifested a design defectno matter what repairs were made,
the a/c unit would still leak water into the interior by virtue of a defect in the unit itself that would cause condensation to form when the unit was used at its maximum settings. 47. At no time did Mercedes ever disclose to the public, including Plaintiff the
5 ', ~ members of the class, that the a/c unit was prone to leak water into the interior ofthe van. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 49. 23 50. 24 units on the market in California for the public to purchase. 25 51. 26 the Sprinter vans would experience water leaks through the a/c units. Investigations by Mercedes 27 and the technical service bulletins issued by Mercedes state that the leaks can be caused by 28
Mercedes knew that the Sprinter vans, and particularly the a1c units, would be used without inspection for defect. Mercedes pre-installed the units in the vans that it sold, or otherwise retrofitted vans with the alc units. In fact, the defect only manifests itself when the a/c units are used at their maximum setting and/or after exposure to steady rain. No reasonable inspection would have revealed the defect, and Mercedes did not expect any consumer to take apart the a/c unit to inspect it prior to purchase. 48. As a result of these defects, water leaks into the interior of the Sprinter vans, where
it has destroyed cargo that was being transported in the van as well as the seating, roof, and walls ofthe van. The water has also resulted in the growth of mold in the vans. Plaintiff's customers are often transporting expensive electronic equipment. When water dumps on this cargo, the damage is not only to his customers' property, but to Plaintiffs goodwill. As a result, on top of paying for repairs, Plaintiff often has to provide compensation for property damage to customers, or comp entire transactions to remedy the customers' inconvenience. Plaintiff and members of the class have had to replace the damage caused by the leaks at their own expense. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraudulent Concealment) Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs alleged above as if fully set forth herein. Mercedes has, since at least 2007, manufactured and placed Sprinter vans with a/c
These vans were defective in material, workmanship, and/or factory preparation;
improper installation ofthe a/c unit and defects in the sealant and/or the installation ofthe sealant
2 I I used around the a/c unit. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 52. The vehicles also manifested a design defectno matter what repairs were made,
the a/c unit would still leak water into the interior by virtue of a defect in the unit itself that would cause condensation to form when the unit was used at its maximum settings. 53. 54. These defects manifested themselves within the warranty period. At all relevant times, Mercedes had superior and exclusive knowledge ofthe
propensity for the a/c units to leak water into the interior of the Sprinter vans. Mercedes had exclusive access to its customer and repair databases, dealer databases, and replacement parts orders, as well as its internal investigations and testing regarding the Sprinter vans that lead to Mercedes issuing technical service bulletins regarding water leaking through and around the a/c units. The prevalence of complaints and repairs as well as the existence of non-public technical services bulletins are facts that are not readily accessible to the public. 55. At all relevant times, Mercedes knew or should have known that having water
enter the interior of Sprinter vans through the a/c unit was inconsistent with the reasonable expectations of Sprinter purchasers. Plaintiff and members ofthe class would have liked to have known about the propensity of water leaking through and around the a/c units. In fact, any reasonable consumer would deem it important to know whether a van that carries people and cargo would leak water into the interior. 56. Notwithstanding the propensity of the a/c units on the Sprinter vans to leak water
into the interior ofthe vehicles, Mercedes instead represented that Sprinter vans were award wining vehicles that were the best commercial vehicle in the segment, that constitute "a testament" to Mercedes-Benz's expertise in developing vehicles that make working easier, safer, and more efficient, and that continue "to set the industry standards for reliability and technological advancement." Mercedes knew that technical services bulletins and other items of information regarding the propensity of the a/c units to leak water into the van's interior were not accessible to the general public. At all times, Mercedes intended that its reputation and marketing materials would induce consumers to purchase the Sprinter vans and the a/c units. Mercedes also E
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
knew that disclosing the propensity for the a/c unit to leak water into the interior of the van would detract from the Sprinter's appeal and result in lost sales to competitors. 57. At no time did Mercedes ever disclose to the public, including Plaintiff and the
members of the class, that the a/c units were prone to leak water into the interior of the van. Prior to his purchase, Plaintiff read promotional materials for the Sprinter vans; nowhere did Mercedes disclose the potential for water to leak into the.interior ofthe van. Instead, Plaintiff relied on the reputation of Mercedes in selecting the Sprinter vans as the focal point of his business model. Even though Plaintiff knew that some of his vehicles had developed leaks, he nonetheless continued to rely on Mercedes' reputation and the lack of any acknowledgment on Mercedes' part that the leaks were the result of a defect in the design ofthe a/c unit or its manufacture and installation. Although there were no vehicles with a comparable body type being sold in the U.S. when Plaintiff designed his business model and marketing around the Sprinter van, had Mercedes disclosed that the leaks were the result of a defect in the design of the a/c unit or its manufacture and installation, he would have taken the extreme measure of altering his business, to employ a different vehicle, at least temporarily. At the very least, Plaintiff would not have agreed to pay as much for the defective Sprinter vans. 58. As a result of Mercedes' fraudulent concealment, Plaintiff and members of the
class spent substantial sums to purchase Sprinter Vans with the a/c unit and subsequently spent substantial sums to repair the damage caused when water leaked into the interior through and around the a/c units. This damage included damage to the vehicle itself but also to cargo being transported in the vehicles. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unfair Competition Unfair Business Practices) 59. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs alleged above as if fully set forth herein. Business &Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (the "Unfair Competition
25 60. 26 Law" or "UCL")defines unfair competition to include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business 27 28
act or practice. Unfair competition includes engaging in a business practice whose utility is 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 outweighed by the harm it causes. 61. Mercedes has known about the propensity for a/c units to leak and damage the
interior of Sprinter vans as well as cargo being transported in the vans since at least 2010. Notwithstanding that knowledge, Mercedes has continued to sell and lease Sprinter vans with a/c units installed without any change in the design or installation of the a/c unit. Mercedes has also continued to sell and lease Sprinter vans with a1c units installed without disclosing to the public that the a1c units may cause water to leak into the interior ofthe van. Mercedes rather continues to market the Sprinter vans as the ultimate in engineering perfection. 62. At the same time, Plaintiff and members of the class have suffered harm in the
form of having to repair.damage caused by leaks in and around the alc unit at their own expense. Plaintiff and members of the class have also had cargo they have been transporting ruined by water leaking from and around the a/c unit. 63. The utility of Mercedes' concealment and failure to take action is minimal; at best,
it represents a savings that inures to Mercedes strictly at the public's expense. Mercedes' failure to act while at the same time continuing to conceal the defect in the a/c unit has not benefited
17' anyone but Mercedes. Had Plaintiff and members of the class known about the propensity for the 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
17 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT;DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
a/c units to leak water into the van's interior, they would not have purchased the vans and/or would not have agreed to pay as much for the defective vans. 64. As a result of Mercedes' practices, Plaintiff and members ofthe class have
suffered and will continue to suffer injury in fact and lost money or property. Specifically, Plaintiff and members of the class have spent substantial sums to purchase Sprinter vans with the a/c unit and subsequently spent substantial sums to repair the damage caused when water leaked into the interior through and around the a/c units. This damage included damage to the vehicle itself but also to cargo being transported in the vehicles. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
1 2 65. 3 66. 4 5
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unfair Competition Fraudulent Business Practices) Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs alleged above as i~ fully set forth herein. Business &Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (the "Unfair Competition
Law" or "UCL")defines unfair competition to include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice. Fraudulent business practices are those practices that are likely to deceive the 6 reasonable consumer. 7 67. 8 units on the market in California for the public to purchase. 9 68. 10 the Sprinter vans would experience water leaks through the a/c units. Investigations by Mercedes 11 and the technical service bulletins issued by Mercedes state that the leaks can be caused by 12 improper installation ofthe a/c unit and defects in the sealant and/or the installation ofthe sealant 13 used around the a/c unit. 14 69. 15 the a1c unit would still leak water into the interior by virtue of a defect in the unit itself that would 16 cause condensation to form when the unit was used at its maximum settings. 17 70. 18 71. 19 propensity for the a/c units to leak water into the interior ofthe Sprinter vans. Mercedes had 20 exclusive access to its customer and repair databases, dealer databases, and replacement parts 21 orders, as well as its internal investigations and testing regarding the Sprinter vans that lead to 22 Mercedes issuing technical service bulletins regarding water leaking through and around the a/c 23 units. The prevalence of complaints and repairs as well as the existence of non-public technical 24 services bulletins are facts that are not readily accessible to the public. 25 72. 26 enter the interior of Sprinter vans through the a/c unit was inconsistent with the reasonable 27 expectations of Sprinter purchasers. Plaintiff and members of the class-would have liked to have 28 At all relevant times, Mercedes knew or should have known that having water At all relevant times, Mercedes had superior and exclusive knowledge of the These defects manifested themselves within the warranty period. The vehicles also manifested a design defectno matter what repairs were made, These vans were defective in material, workmanship, and/or factory preparation; Mercedes has, since at least 2007, manufactured and placed Sprinter vans with alc
1s
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TWAL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
known about the propensity of water leaking through and around the a/c units. In fact, any reasonable consumer would deem it important to know whether a van that carries people and cargo would allow water into the interior. 73. Notwithstanding the propensity ofthe a/c units on the Sprinter vans to leak water
into the interior ofthe vehicles, Mercedes instead represented that Sprinter vans were award wining vehicles that were the best commercial vehicle in the segment, that constitute "a testament" to Mercedes-Benz's expertise in developing vehicles that make working easier, safer, and more efficient, and that continue "to set the industry standards for reliability and technological advancement." Mercedes knew that technical services bulletins and other items of information regarding the propensity of the a/c units to leak water into the van's interior were not accessible to the general public. At all times, Mercedes intended its reputation and marketing materials would induce consumers to purchase the Sprinter vans and the a/c units. Mercedes also knew that disclosing the propensity for the a/c unit to leak water into the interior ofthe van would detract from the Sprinter's appeal and result in lost sales to competitors. 74. At no time did Mercedes ever disclose to the public, including Plaintiff and the
members of the class, that the a/c units were prone to leak water into the interior of the van. Prior to his purchase, Plaintiff read promotional materials for the Sprinter vans; nowhere did Mercedes disclose the potential for water to leak into the interior ofthe van. Instead, Plaintiff relied on the reputation of Mercedes in selecting the Sprinter vans as the focal point of his business model. Even though Plaintiff knew that some of his vehicles had developed leaks, he nonetheless continued to rely on Mercedes' reputation and the lack of any acknowledgment on Mercedes' part that the leaks were the result of a defect in the design of the a/c unit or its manufacture and installation. Although there were no vehicles with a comparable body type being sold in the U.S. when Plaintiff designed his business model and marketing around the Sprinter van, had Mercedes disclosed that the leaks were the result of a defect in the design of the a/c unit or its manufacture and installation, he would have taken the extreme measure of altering his business. At the very least, Plaintiff would not have agreed to pay as much for the defective vans.
1 2 3 4
75.
As a result of Mercedes' fraudulent concealment, Plaintiff and members of the
class spent substantial sums to purchase Sprinter Vans with the a1c unit and subsequently spent substantial sums to repair the damage caused when water leaked into the interior through and around the a/c units. This damage included damage to the vehicle itself but also to cargo being
5 ~ ~ transported in the vehicles. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 77. 15 78. 16 the one hand, and Mercedes, on the other hand, as to their respective rights, remedies and 17 obligations. Specifically, Plaintiff contends and Defendant denies, that: 18 (a) 19 a/c unit that results in water leaking into the interior ofthe van; 20 (b) 21 results in water leaking into the interior of the van; 22 (c) 23 units would be free of any defect in material, workmanship, or factory 24 preparation; 25 (d) 26 of water leaking into the interior of the van through and around the a/c 27 units in Sprinter vans; 28 Mercedes is liable for damage to the vehicle and other property as a result Mercedes has failed to honor its warranty that the Sprinter vans with a/c Sprinter vans equipped with a/c units manifest a manufacturing defect that Sprinter vans equipped with a/c units manifest a defect in the design ofthe An actual controversy has arisen between Plaintiff and members ofthe class, on Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs alleged above as if fully set forth herein. 76. As a result of Mercedes' practices, Plaintiff and members ofthe class have
suffered and will continue to suffer injury in fact and lost money or property. Specifically, Plaintiff and members ofthe class have spent substantial sums to purchase Sprinter Vans with the a/c unit and subsequently spent substantial sums to repair the damage caused when water leaked into the interior through and around the a/c units. This damage included damage to the vehicle itself but also to cargo being transported in the vehicles. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relied
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /// /// 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 79.
(e)
Mercedes has known or should have known that the a/c units were likely to allow water to leak into the interior ofthe Sprinter vans;
(~
That Mercedes has concealed the propensity of the a/c units in Sprinter vans to allow water to leak into the interior of the Sprinter vans;
(g)
That the benefit accruing to Mercedes from concealing the propensity of the a/c units in Sprinter vans to allow water to leak into the interior ofthe vans is substantially outweighed by the harm caused the public by Mercedes failure to disclose; and
(h)
That Mercedes has engaged in unfair and fraudulent business practices.
Plaintiff further alleges that he and members of the class are entitled to recover the
amounts they have paid for repairing the vans subsequent to a leak as well as any losses to other property resulting from the leak as alleged herein. 80. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a declaration as to the respective rights, remedies, and
obligations of the parties. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE,Plaintiff seeks judgment in favor of himself and the proposed Class for the following: 1. an order certifying the proposed class and appointing Plaintiff and his counsel to represent the Class; injunctive and declaratory relief as pled or as the Court may deem proper; an award of damages and restitution in favor of Plaintiff and the class; interest as allowable by law; an award of reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by applicable law; all costs of suit; and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
2l CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 'i 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: Apri1~~2014
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all claims so triable.
Respectfully submitted, THE VEEN FIRM,P.C. CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
By:
IA . Steven A. Kronenberg
~_
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed la s
cf~~dk"~' ors,
N~~~~ ~ ~4~s
Superior Court of California, County ofSan Francisco ~~
"
~' ~ ~" }'~~^ti~~~
Alternative Dispute Resolution Program Information Package
~~
~~
The plaintiff must serve a copy of the ADR information package on each defendant along with the complaint. (CRC 3.221(c)) WHAT IS ADR? Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is the term used to describe the various options available for settling a dispute without a trial. There are many different ADR processes, the most common forms of which are mediation, aru~t~atio~ ar~d settle ~ ~~nt cor~f~r~nces. fn AJR, t.aired, impartial people decide disputes or help parties decide disputes themselves. They can help parties resolve disputes without having to go to court. WHY CHOOSE ADR? "It is the policy of the Superior Court that every noncriminal, nonjuvenile case participate either in an early settlement conference, mediation, arbitration, early neutral evaluation or some other alternative dispute resolution process prior to trial." (Local Rule 4) ADR can have a number of advantages over traditional litigation: ADR can save time. A dispute often can be resolved in a matter of months, even weeks, through ADR, while a lawsuit can take years. ADR can save money, including court costs, attorney fees, and expert fees. ADR encourages participation. The parties may have more opportunities to tell their story than in court and may have more control over the outcome of the case. ADR is more satisfying. For all the above reasons, many people participating in ADR have reported a high degree of satisfaction. HOW DO I PARTICIPATE IN ADR? Litigants may elect to participate in ADR at any point in a case. General civil cases may voluntarily enter into the court's ADR programs by any of the following means: -~ Filing a Stipulation to ADR: Complete and file the Stipulation form (attached io this packet) at the clerk's office located at 400 McAllister Street, Room 103; Indicating your ADR preference on the Case Management Statement (also attached to this packet); or Contacting the court's ADR office (see below) or the Bar Association of San Francisco's ADR Services at 415-787_-8905 or www.sfbar.orq/adr for more information. For more information about ADR programs or dispute resolution alternatives, contact: Superior Court Alternative Dispute Resolution 400 McAllister Street, Room 103, San Francisco, CA 94102 415-~51-3876 Or, visif fhe court ADR website at www.sfsuperiorcourt.orq
ADR- 1 12/22(ja)
Page 1
The San Francisco Superior Court offers different types of ADR processes for general civil matters; each ADR program is described in the subsections below: 1) SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES. The goal of settlement conferences is to provide participants an opportunity to reach ~ mutually acceptable settlement that resolves all or part of a dispute early in the litigation process. (A) THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO (BASF) EARLY SETTLEMENT PROGRAM (ESP): ESP remains as one of the Court's ADR programs (see Local Rule 4.3) but parties must select the program the Court no longer will order parties into ESP. Operation: Panels of pre-screened attorneys (one plaintiff, one defense counsel) each with at least 10 years' trial experience provide a minimum of two hours of settlement conference time, including evaluation of strengths and weakness of a case and potential case value. On occasion, a panelist with extensive experience in both plaintiff and defense roles serves as a sole panelist. BASF handles notification to all parties, conflict checks with the panelists, and full case management. The success rate for the program is 78% and the satisfaction rafe is 97 /o. Full procedures are at: www.sfbar.orq/esp. Cost: BASF charges an administrative fee of $295 per party with a cap of $590 for parties represented by the same counsel. Waivers are available to those who qualify. For more information, call .Marilyn King at 415-782-8905, email adr(a~sfbar.orq or see the enclosed brochure. (B) MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES: Parties may elect to apply to the Presiding Judge's department for aspecially-set mandatory settlement conference. See Local Rule 5.0 for further instructions. Upon approval of the Presiding Judge, the court wil{ schedule the conference and assign the case for a settlement conference. 2) MEDIATION Mediation is a voluntary, flexible, and confidential process in which a neutral third party facilitates negotiations. The goal of mediation is to reach a mutually satisfactory agreeme;~it, before incurring the expense of going to court, that resolves all or part of a dispute after exploring the interests, needs, and priorities of the parties in light of relevant evidence and the law. A mediator strives to bring the parties to a mutually beneficial settlement of the dispute. (A) MEDIATION SERVICES OF THE 'BAR ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO, in cooperation with the Superior Court, is designed to help civil litigants resolve disputes before they incur substantial costs in litigation. While it is best to utilize the program at the outset of litigation, parties may use the program at any time while a case is pending. Operation: Experienced professional mediators, screened and approved, provide one hour of preparation time and the first two hours of mediation time. Mediation time beyond that is charged at the mediator's hourly rate. BASF pre-screens all mediators based upon strict educational and experience requirements. Parties can select their mediator from the panels at www.sfbar.orq/mediation or BASF can assist with mediator selection. The BASF website contains photographs, biographies, and videos of the mediators as well as testimonials to assist with the selection process. BASF staff handles conflict checks and full case management.
ADR- 1 12/22(ja) Page 2
Mediators work with parties to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution. The success rate for the program is 64% and the satisfaction rate is 99%. Cost: BASF charges an administrative fee of $295 per party. The hourly mediator fee beyond the first three hours will vary depending on the mediator selected. Waivzrs of the administrative fee are available to those who qualify. For more information, call Marilyn King at 415-782-8905, email adr~sfbar.or4 or see the enclosed brochure. (B)PRIVATE MEDIATION: Although not currently a part of the court's ADR program, civil disputes may also be resolved through private mediation. Parties may elect any private mediator or mediation organization of their choice; the selection and coordination of private mediation is the responsibility of the parties. Parties may find mediators and organizations on the Internet. ihe cost ofi private mediation will vary depending on the mediaior selected. 3) ARBITRATION An arbitrator is neutral attorney who presides at a hearing where the parties present evidence through exhibits and testimony. The arbitrator applies the law to the facts of the case and makes an award based upon the merits of the case. (A) JUDICIAL ARBITRATION: When the court orders a case to arbitration it is called "judicial arbitration". Thy goal of arbitration is to provide parties with an adjudication that is earlier, faster, less formal, and uswally less expensive than a trial. Operation:.. Pursuant to CCP 1141.11 and Local Rule 4, all civil actions in which the amount in controversy is $50,000 or less, and no party seeks equitable relief, shall be ordered to arbitration. (Upon stipulation of all parties, other civil matters may be submitted to judicial arbitration.) A case is ordered to arbitration after the Case Management Conference. An arbitrator is chosen from the court's arbitration panel. Arbitrations are generally held between 7 and 9 months after a complaint has been filed. Judicial arbitration is not binding unless all parties agree to be bound by the arbitrator's decision. Any party may request a trial within 60 days after the arbitrator's award has been filed. Local Rule 4.2 allows for mediation in lieu of judicial arbitration, so long as the parties file a stipulation to mediate after the filing of a complaint. If settlement is not reached through mediation, a case proceeds to trial as scheduled. Cost: There is no cost to the parties for judicial arbitration. (B) PRIVATE ARBITRATION: Although not currently a part of-the court's ADR program, civil disputes may also be resolved through private arbitration. Here, the parties voluntarily consent to arbitration. If all parties agree, private arbitration may be binding and the parties give up the right to judicial review of the arbitrator's decision. In private arbitration, the parties select a private arbitrator and are responsible for paying the arbitrator's fees.
TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THE COURT'S ADR PROGRAMS, PLEASE COMPLETE THE ATTACHED STIPULATION TO ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND SUBMIT IT TO THE COURT. YOU MUST ALSO CONTACT BASF TO ENROLL IN THE LISTED BASF PROGRAMS. THE COURT DOES NOT FORWARD COPIES OF COMPLETED STIPULATIONS TO BASF.
ADR- 1 iz/22(ja)
Page $
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name and address)
FOR COURT USE ONLY -
TELEPHONE NO.: ATTORNEY FOR (Name): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 400 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 -4514 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: CASE NUMBER:
STIPULATION TO ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)

DEPARTMENT 610
1) K
The parties hereby stipulate that this action shall be submitted to the following ADR process: Early Settlement Program of the Bar Association of San Francisco (BASF) -Pre-screened experienced attorneys provide a minimum of 2 hours of settlement conference time for a BASF administrative fee of $250 per party. Waivers are available to those who qualify. BASF handles notification to all parties, conflict checks with the panelists, and full case management. www.sfbar.orq/esp Mediation Services of BASF - Experienced professional mediators, screened and approved, provide one hour of preparation and the first two hours of mediation time for a BASF administrative fee of $250 per party. Mediation time beyond that is charged at the mediator's hourly rate. Waivers of the administrative fee are available to those who qualify. BASF assists parties with mediator selection, conflicts checks and full case management. www,sfbar.orq/mediation Private Mediation - Mediators and ADR provider organizations charge by the hour or by the day, current market rates. ADR organizations may also charge an administrative fee. Parties may find experienced mediators and organizations on the Internet. Judicial Arbitration -Non-binding arbitration is available to cases in which the amount in controversy is $50,000 or less and no equitable relief is sought. The court appoints a prescreened arbitrator who will issue an award. There is no fee for this program. www.sfsuperiorcourt.orq Other ADR process (describe) The parties agree that the ADR Process shall be completed by (date): Plaintiffs) and Defendants) further agree as follows:
K 2) 3)
Name of Party Stipulating
Name of Party Stipulating
Name of Party or Attorney Executing Stipulation
Name of Party or Attorney Executing Stipulation
Signature of Party or Attorney
Signature of Party or Attorney
K Plaintiff K Defendant K Cross-defendant Dated: K

ADR-2
~~~~~~~~~~~K Defendant K Cross-defendant Dated:
Additional signatures) attached
o~nz
STIPULATION TO ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
rnn_~ ~ n
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bay number, and address): - - ~ FOR COURT USE ONLY
TELEPHONE NO.: E-MAID ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR (Name):
FAX NO.(Optional):
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

STREET ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODE: BRANCH NAME: -
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

(Check one): 0 UNLIMITED CASE (Amount demanded exceeds $25,000) Q LIMITED CASE (Amount demanded is $25,000 or less)
CASE NUMBER:
A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE is scheduled as follows: Date: Time: Dept.: Div.: Room:
Address of court (if different from the address above): Q Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone, by(name): INSTRUCTIONS: All applicable boxes must be checked, and the specified information must be provided. 1. Party or parties (answer one): a. 0 This statement is submitted by party (name): b. 0 This statement is submitted jointly by parties (names):
2.
Complaint and cross-complaint (fo be answered by plaintiffs and cross-complainants only) a. The complaint was filed on (date): b. ~ The cross-complaint, if any, was filed on (date):
3. Service (to be answered by plainfi(fs and cross-complainants only) a. Q All parties named in the complaint and cross-complaint have been served, have appeared, or have been dismissed. b. 0 The following parties named in the complaint orcross-complaint . (1) Q have not been served (specify names and explain why not):
(2) 0 have been served but have not appeared and have not been dismissed (specify names): (3) ~ have had a default entered against them (specify names): c. 0 The following additional parties may be added (specify names, nature ofinvolvement in case, and date by which they maybe served):
4.
Description of case a. Type of case in 0 complaint
cross-complaint
(Describe, including causes of action):
Page t of S Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judiaal Council of Caliipmia CM-110 Rev_ July t, 2011]
cap. R~~eS Or co~~c

rules 3.726-3.730 www.courts.ca.gov
CM-110
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: 4. b. Provide a brief statement of the case, including any damages.(If personal injury damages are sought, specify the injury and damages claimed, including medical expenses to date (indicate source and amount], estimated future medical expenses, lost earnings to date, and estimated future lost earnings. ff equrfable reliefis sought, describe the nature of the relief.)
CASE NUMBER:
[~ (!f more space is needed, check this box and attach a page designated as Attachment 4b.) 5. Jury or nonjury trial The party or parties request requesting a jury trial): Q a jury trial ~ a nonjury trial. (If more than one party, provide the name of each party
6.
Trial date a. [~ The trial has been set for (date): b. 0No trial date has been set. This case will be ready for trial within 12 months of the date of the filing of the complaint (it not, explain): c. Dates on which parties or attorneys will not be available for trial (specify dates and explain reasons for unavailability):
7. Estimated length of trial The party or parties estimate that the trial will take (check one): a. Q days(specify number): b. ~ hours(short causes)(specify):
8. Trial representation (to be answered for each party) The party or parties will be represented at trial Q by the attorney or party listed in the caption [~ by the following: a. Attorney: b. Firm: c. Address: d. Telephone number: f. Fax number: e. E-mail address: g. Party represented: Q Additional representation is described in Attachment 8. 9. Preference [] This case is entitled to preference (specify code section): 10. Alternative dispute resolution(ADR) a. ADR information package. Please note that different ADR processes are available in different courts and communities; read the ADR information package provided by the court under rule 3.221 for information about the processes available through the court and community programs in this case. (1) For parties represented by counsel: Counsel ~ has 0 has not provided the ADR information package identified in rule 3.221 to the client and reviewed ADR options with the client. (2) For self-represented parties: Party ~ has ~ has not reviewed the ADR information package identified in rule 3.221. b. Referral to judicial arbitration or civil action mediation (if available). (1) ~] This matter is sub1'ect to mandatory judicial arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.11 or to civil action mediation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1775.3 because the amount in controversy does not exceed the statutory limit. (2) ~ Plaintiff elects to refer this case to judicial arbitration and agrees to limit recovery to the amount specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.11. (3}[~ This case is exempt from judicial arbitration under rule 3.811 of the California Rules of Courtor from civil action mediation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1775 et seq.(specify exemption};
CM-110[Rev. July 1, 2011]
Page 2 0( 5
CM-110
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: ~EFEN DANT/RESPONDENT: 10. c. Indicate the ADR process or processes that the party or parties are willing to participate in, have agreed to participate in, or have already participated in (check all that apply and provide the specified information): case NunnaeR:
The party or parties completing this form are willing to participate in the following ADR processes(check all that apply):
If the party or parties completing this form in the case have agreed to participate in or have already completed an ADR process or processes, indicate the status of the processes (attach a copy of the parties' ADR stipulation): Q Mediation session not yet scheduled
O (1) Mediation
Q Mediation session scheduled for(date): Agreed to complete mediation by (date): Q Mediation completed on (date):
Q Settlement conference not yet scheduled (2) Settlement conference 0 ~ Settlement conference scheduled for(date): Q Agreed to complete settlement conference by (date): Q Settlement conference completed on (date):
Q Neutral evaluation not yet scheduled Q Neutral evaluation scheduled for(date): (3) Neutral evaluafion , Q Agreed to complete neutral evaluation by (date): Q Neutral evaluation completed on (date):
Q Judicial arbitration not yet scheduled (4) Nonbinding judicial arbitration ~ 0 Judicial arbitration scheduled for (date): Q Agreed to complete judicial arbitration by (date): Q Judicial arbitration completed on (date):
Q Private arbitration not yet scheduled (5) Binding private arbitration ~ ~ Private arbitration scheduled for(date): Q Agreed to complete private arbitration by (date): Q Private arbitration completed on (date):
Q ADR session not yet scheduled Q ADR session scheduled for (date): (6) Other (specify): Q Agreed to complete ADR session by (date): Q ADR completed on (date):
GM-1 ~u ~Kev. July 1, 2011
Page 3 015
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:
CASE NUMBER:
11. Insurance a. ~ Insurance carrier, if any, for party filing this statement(name): b. Reservation of rights: 0 Yes 0No c. ~ Coverage issues will significantly affect resolution of this case (explain):
12. Jurisdiction Indicate any matters that may affect the courPs jurisdiction or processing of this case and describe the status. Bankruptcy Q Other (specify): Status: 13. Related cases, consolidation, and coordination a, 0 There are companion, underlying, or related cases. (1) Name of case: (2) Name of court: (3)Case number. (4) Status: Q Additional cases are described in Attachment 13a. b. 0 A motion to Q consolidate Q coordinate will be filed by (name party):
14. Bifurcation Q Tne party or parties intend to file a motion for an order bifurcating, severing, or coordinating the following issues or causes of action (specify moving party, type of motion, and reasons):
15. Other motions 0The party or parties expect to file the following motions before trial (specify moving party, type of motion, and issues):
16. Discovery a.0 The party or parties have completed all discovery. b.0 The following discovery will be completed by the date specified (describe all anticipated discovery): P~ Description Date
~. ~ The follo~.ving discovery issues, including issues regarding the discovery of electronically stored information, are anticipated (specify):
CM-110[Rev.July1.2011]
Paseaots
CM-110
PLAINTIFFlPETITIONER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Cnse ~~~~~~~~
17. Economic litigation a.~ This is a limited civil case (i.e., the amount demanded is $25,000 or less) and the economic litigation procedures in Code of Civil Procedure sections 90-98 will apply to this case. This is a limited civil case and a motion to withdraw the case from the economic litigation procedures or for additional b. 0 discovery will be filed (if checked, explain specifically why economic litigation procedures relating to discovery or trial should not apply to this case):
18. Other issues 0 The party or parties request that the following additional matters be considered or determined at the case management conference (specify):
19. Meet and confer a. 0 The party or parties have met and conferred with all parties on all subjects required by rule 3.724 of the California Rules of Court (if not, explain):
b. After meeting and conferring as required by rule 3.724 of the California Rules of Court, the parties agree on the following (specify):
20. Total number of pages attached (if any): am completely familiar with this case and will be fully prepared to discuss the status of discovery and alternative dispute resolution, as well as other issues raised'by this statement, and will possess the authority to enter into stipulations on these issues at the time of the case management conference, including the written authority of the party where required. Date
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
(SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY)
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
(SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY)
0Additional signatures are attached.
CM-1~0 Rev. July 1, 2017]
Pa e5o(5
The Early Settlement Program:
to
,~
~()
a+t
y1,
.~
p~(f~
~~~ ~~, ~~ ~ 2 Do you have a case filed in San Francisco Superior Court and want
to'settle sooner.#han your trial date?
a~..
y
.:.'~t :`:.`'wa.%:'_,w;,'-.7.~: -:5.:,,;~.,

:,xv'~`f"iY,~~;~x.:
r ~...~F:1
-'..~
1111 rJ ~`~. :~.e'

~Yt7' ,iyY:g;.;w~~
w y~, awi~ y
C~~,.~:.$~~ C 11;(~176e.~ ~C ,.
_cT ~r,~~%' ~.~" -x:
Gj~ SIG ~, "`C1 1 "~.'~(C9~i
~~y~r~y( .a~~1.. ~,(~(~o~~,~
..
-.:. ... ... -
.....
~. \
. r. ''.
~,
{ w~,.
yy
Early Settlement provides: ,_

_ __.,. -,
,~~
~
_,__ice ..
~"~-~'`c,
~:~ s.
t..
_-.
~}.;f
,..
v:;
.~"LE.~.~1 yi r ~,~'~`
~RX~. -~
^F~~~...-ir3i ePf;~~i~~ ~ `~
~}
~;, ~-: ` ~,~-~
y
~x
.~' ryx~` -~-~
i..4..
'~ k
~
i
,M.' ~~~3 q c Frr
+i~: ,. ;~Qb~~'A
~
3 n~
,.Y6~i~ r 1
_ ,. _.
7~`k~',~,ii?#s~'.b .< ",'h ''i,'v.'I~Akr .~~r~~E
~
.h ':V
.a
~.. ~~;:.
~r~~
%I'-~~;dN ~~ ";~.. .3~a?'"" ^'.~,.~~r~'`asrs" :fit. y5v'~~, n~'."' '~:
~',Y. Vii.~Y.3 F
r~ ~`
'.-ryf'a^<~ 1,:'~ ~'"ysy ;~' ~~t r ,~:~.5, V. r~l.'~~~,~~#,~ Ysi'~':w~.~"~=.:v'i~r' x}i~;~.[i.
~6
~i,~G,~k
;~
~`
-.~
y _ t... -
1~ ~ 6r f
. ~f~ . ~
,; "~
Z ~V~ ~= ! i
,..
"_ ._
r{~
.~..
S'
3~~f.7cC ~' ~'t~ Yp~
~~";
:;r
.~q
{
Consider The Bar Association of San Francisco's

Learn more about the Early Settlement Program-scan the QRCode or visit www.sfbar.org/adr/esp
-~, ~ ~ r
, a~
Yo rr.,,
F ~
~u,i
ti ~
~ ~~
..
' r~~
Liar/ y
/ement Setf
Pro~~ram
The Bar Association of San Francisco's

adr@sfbar.org or call 415-782-8905 for a packet to be _sent to you.
Early Sefflement Program (ESP) is available as one of San Francisco
The forms you need can be found at vw~vw.sfbar.org/esp, or email
Superior Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) programs (Local Rule
O Please complete the ESP Agreement and

return it to BASF via email at adr@sfbar.org or by fax to 415-989-0381. You don't have to get the other parties to sign, just send
yours.
4.3).
D When all parties have signed the ESP Agreement, you will be sent the Notice of
ESP, along with an invoice. D There is a $295 administrative fee per party, with a cap of $590 for multiple parties represented by the same attorney. You can pay by check, money order or credit card. D Send your administrative fee by fax, email
ESP is a highly successful ADR program that handles cases in areas of law such as business, personal injury, employment, labor, civil rights, discrimination, insurance, malpractice, landlord/tenant, and many others.
ESP is unique in that the panelists,
in helping you move toward settlement, can provide you confidential feedback about their evaluation of your case, including opinions as to potential case value.
For more information as well as the
complete Policies &Procedures, go to:
or mail to: BASF /ESP, 301 Battery Street, Third Floor, San Francisco, California 94111. 4 When BASF receives the fees from all parties, your matter will be assigned to a panelist (or panel of 2), who you will work with to set the date, time and location for your conference. D If you must reschedule your ESP conference date, work with the other side and your
panelists) to set the new date. BASF does not need to be notified. O Before your conference, provide a copy of your description of the dispute to all parties and panelists. BASF does not need a copy.
www.sfbar.org/esp
D If the matter is settled in your ESP conference, congratulations!

~ If the matter is not settled in your ESP
conference, your initial court date remains
the same.

Class Action Complaint: Bandago v. Mercedes-Benz USA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Class Action Complaint: Bandago v. Mercedes-Benz USA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE NUMBER: CGG14-538643 DIGBY ALDER GROUP LLC DBA BANDAGO LLC, VS.

Code of Gvil Procedure 472.20, 465

principle place of business in San Francisco.

Defendant Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., LLC is a limited liability company organized

~:~ or b) had an a/c unit installed by Mercedes after purchase or lease.

10 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

40. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 42. 16 43. 17 18

These vans were defective in material, workmanship, and/or factory preparation;

These vans were defective in material, workmanship, and/or factory preparation;

19 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

As a result of Mercedes' fraudulent concealment, Plaintiff and members of the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /// /// 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 79.

That Mercedes has engaged in unfair and fraudulent business practices.

2l CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 'i 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: Apri1~~2014

Respectfully submitted, THE VEEN FIRM,P.C. CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed la s

22 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Superior Court of California, County ofSan Francisco ~~

~' ~ ~" }'~~^ti~~~

Alternative Dispute Resolution Program Information Package

ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name and address)

FOR COURT USE ONLY -

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: CASE NUMBER:

STIPULATION TO ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)

Name of Party Stipulating

Name of Party Stipulating

Name of Party or Attorney Executing Stipulation

Name of Party or Attorney Executing Stipulation

Signature of Party or Attorney

Signature of Party or Attorney

K Plaintiff K Defendant K Cross-defendant Dated: K

~~~~~~~~~~~K Defendant K Cross-defendant Dated:

Additional signatures) attached

STIPULATION TO ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

TELEPHONE NO.: E-MAID ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR (Name):

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Description of case a. Type of case in 0 complaint

(Describe, including causes of action):

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

cap. R~~eS Or co~~c

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)

(SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY)

(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)

(SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY)

0Additional signatures are attached.

CM-1~0 Rev. July 1, 2017]

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

The Early Settlement Program:

.:.'~t :`:.`'wa.%:'_,w;,'-.7.~: -:5.:,,;~.,

1111 rJ ~`~. :~.e'

Gj~ SIG ~, "`C1 1 "~.'~(C9~i

~~y~r~y( .a~~1.. ~,(~(~o~~,~

-.:. ... ... -

Early Settlement provides: ,_

.~' ryx~` -~-~

,M.' ~~~3 q c Frr

%I'-~~;dN ~~ ";~.. .3~a?'"" ^'.~,.~~r~'`asrs" :fit. y5v'~~, n~'."' '~:

3~~f.7cC ~' ~'t~ Yp~

Consider The Bar Association of San Francisco's

~' ~ ~" }'^ti~

cap. ReS Or coc

%I'-;dN ";~.. .3~a?'"" ^'.~,.~~r~'`asrs" :fit. y5v'~~, n~'."' '~: