California Motors Direct Sued For Violating Lemon Law And Forcing Unfair Arbitration on Consumers
California Motors Direct sued by prolific Southern California lemon law attorney in lawsuit alleging that the dealer is forcing illegal arbitration agreements onto customers.
San Diego, CA (I-Newswire) July 12, 2012 - Prominent San Diego, California consumer rights lawyer Michael R. Vachon, Esq. has filed a lawsuit against the popular Orange County, California used car dealership "California Motors Direct" alleging that the car dealer not only violated the State's lemon law, but also forced an illegal arbitration clause onto its customers. The lawsuit Preciado v. California Motors Direct as filed in Orange County Superior Court on June 20, 2012.
The lawsuit against California Motors Direct alleges that the Stanton, California used car dealer not only sold a lemon used car to the Plaintiff Ricardo Preciado, but also that California Motors Direct attempted to preclude Mr. Preciado - and its other customers - from pursuing any legal claims they might have against the dealership in court. That is, the complaint alleges that California Motors Direct forces its customers (including Mr. Preciado) to sign arbitration agreements stating that any legal claims against California Motors Direct cannot be resolved in a lawsuit, but must instead heard by a private arbitrator who will issue a decision determining the parties' legal rights. The complaint further alleges that California Motors Direct's arbitration agreement is so one-sided and unfair that it is unenforceable under California law.
In addition to the arbitration-related causes of action, the complaint filed by Mr. Preciado's lemon law attorney alleges that California Motors Direct violated automobile lemon laws by selling Mr. Preciado a used 2003 Infiniti G35 that had such serious mechanical defects that it was not safe to drive. It also alleges that California Motors Direct committed fraud by not telling Mr. Preciado about the vehicle's prior accident damage.
Visit Mr. Preciado's lemon law attorney's Web site to read a copy of the Preciado v. California Motors Direct lawsuit.
Please note: the Orange County Superior Court has not yet made any ruling on the merits of Mr. Preciado's allegations, or determined whether or not California Motors Direct violated the law. California Motors Direct is expected to file an answer denying that it violated applicable laws.
CONSUMER PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY LOOKING FOR OTHER CALIFORNIA MOTORS DIRECT CUSTOMERS
Lemon law lawyer Michael R. Vachon, Esq. has announced that in an attempt to gather evidence for the Preciado v. California Motors Direct lawsuit he wants to locate and talk to other people who purchased used cars from California Motors Direct. He states that he is particularly interested in finding consumers who were also forced to sign arbitration agreements, or who were tricked into buying unsafe or accident-damaged automobiles. He is offering free lemon law consultations to all California Motors Direct customers who call to discuss their experiences with the Orange County, California dealership. He can be reached at 1-855-4-LEMON-LAW (1-855-453-6665).
About Law Office of Michael R. Vachon, Esq.
Law Office of Michael R. Vachon, Esq.
Michael R. Vachon, Esq.
17150 Via del Campo
Phone : 1-855-4-LEMON-LAW
Published On:July 12, 2012
Print Release:Print Release
If you have questions regarding information in this press release contact the company listed above. I-Newswire.com is a press release service and not the author of this press release.The information that is on or available through this site is for informational purposes only and speaks only as of the particular date or dates of that information. As some companies and PR Agencies submit their press releases once per week,month or quarter, make sure to check the official company website for accurate release dates as our site displays the I-Newswire.com press release distribution date only.We do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information on or available through this site, and we are not responsible for or omissions in that information or for actions taken in reliance on that information.