Jenkins v. C3 Racing, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 January 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:17-cv-141 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont |
| Parties | W. OWEN JENKINS, Plaintiff, v. C3 RACING, INC. and MARC F. EVANS Defendants. |
(Doc. 5)
Plaintiff W. Owen Jenkins brings this action against Defendant C3 Racing, Inc., d/b/a New England Classic Car Co., and its owner, Marc F. Evans (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging six claims arising from the purchase and sale of a 1967 MGB motor vehicle ("the MGB"): (1) breach of express warranties, (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) negligent misrepresentation, (4) fraudulent misrepresentation, (5) fraudulent concealment, and (6) unfair and deceptive business practices under Vermont's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), 9 V.S.A. § 2453. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of $22,750, punitive damages of no less than $10,000, exemplary damages of $56,655 pursuant to the CPA, attorney's fees and costs, and the payment of pre-judgment interest.
Pending before the court is Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting Plaintiff's state law claims fail to exceed the $75,000 threshold for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff opposes dismissal.
Plaintiff, an attorney, is representing himself. Defendants are represented by Mary P. Kehoe, Esq.
Plaintiff alleges Defendant Evans is an individual residing in Connecticut and Defendant C3 Racing, Inc., d/b/a as New England Classic Car Co., is a Connecticut Corporation. Plaintiff resides in Essex Junction, Vermont. As Defendants concede, diversity of citizenship is established.
The Complaint alleges Defendants are engaged in the business of selling classic sports cars, vintage and historic racing cars, and various other collectible vehicles. Defendants advertise their inventory on the Internet and offer delivery within the New England region.
In July 2015, Defendants bought the MGB, a 1967 motor vehicle with a removable hard top, from Daniel F. Kacher for $9,000. Before selling the MGB and in response to Defendants' inquiries, Mr. Kacher allegedly disclosed to Defendants in writing that the MGB had rust on the right door, undercarriage, and rims and verbally disclosed rust on the firewall and transmission problems.
After purchasing the MGB from Mr. Kacher, Defendants immediately offered the MGB for sale on the Internet for $17,900 without the hard top and without making any repairs or modifications. Defendants' Internet advertisement for the MGB contained the following representations: ". . . a very nice car . . . 3,000 miles on [a] rebuilt engine . . . new top, new chrome, a wonderful example of the most collectible of MGB's . . . 105 mph performance, great handling, sure braking, comfortable ride . . . ." (Doc. 1 at 3, ¶ 12) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In response to the Internet advertisement, Plaintiff contacted Defendants, asking for details about the MGB, including how Defendants had located and acquired the MGB and information regarding its overall condition because Plaintiff did not want to purchase a "project car." Id. at 3, ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendant Evans replied that he found the MGB advertised on the Internet, had it inspected by a person acting on Defendants' behalf, and, finding the car in excellent condition, decided to buy it from Mr. Kacher. In response to Plaintiff's inquiries about specific issues with the MGB, Defendants stated that it had only 55,400 original miles, no rust, and was in "showcondition[.]" Id. at 4, ¶ 15 (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendants further represented in writing that:
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff discussed scheduling an appointment to view the MGB at Defendants' place of business, but Defendants "assured Plaintiff that such [a] viewing was not necessary because the condition of the [MGB] was excellent and precisely as advertised." Id. at 4, ¶ 17. After the parties agreed to additional minor upgrades costing $600 and a delivery cost of $385, Plaintiff bought the MGB "sight unseen" for $18,885 without an independent inspection from Defendants. (Doc. 1 at 4, ¶ 20) (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendants promised delivery of the MGB to Plaintiff in Vermont.
On October 29, 2015, Defendants' employee delivered the MGB to Plaintiff, gave Plaintiff an invoice for the car, and drove the MGB to Plaintiff's residence in South Hero, Vermont. The bill of sale contained the following warranty:
THIS VEHICLE IS SOLD "AS IS." THIS MEANS THAT YOU WILL LOSE YOUR IMPLIED WARRANTIES. YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR ANY REPAIRS NEEDED AFTER SALE. IF WE HAVE MADE ANY PROMISES TO YOU, THE LAW SAYS WE MUST KEEP THEM, EVEN IF WE SELL "AS IS." TO PROTECT YOURSELF, ASK US: 1. TO PUT ALL PROMISES INTO WRITING, AND 2. IF WE OFFER A WARRANTY ON THIS VEHICLE.
Shortly after delivery, Plaintiff notified Defendants that the MGB was not in the condition advertised by Defendants. Plaintiff advised that the MGB had:
significant defects with respect to the windshield and transmission, had rust on the body, undercarriage, wheels, and firewall, had hood and trunk latches which would not stay latched, lacked locking mechanisms, did not have a new top (but rather an older top which had permanent red paint over-spray on it), and had excessive vibration and shaking which limited its maximum driving speed to 55 MPH.
(Doc. 1 at 5, ¶ 22.)
In response, Defendants acknowledged that they knew about the windshield defect but decided to deliver the MGB nonetheless and stated that all the other defects were unimportant "because that's what you get with a 50 year old car." Id. at 5, ¶ 24 (internal quotation marks omitted). In November 2015, before storing the MGB for the winter, Plaintiff installed, at his own cost, a replacement windshield provided by Defendants.
After removing the MGB from storage in May 2016, Plaintiff notified Defendants that the MGB had additional issues:
significant defects with the engine and starter motor, including flywheel, incorrect mileage because of a broken speedometer and cable, water damage to the interior panels and carpets because the rusted-out firewall could not prevent water infiltration into the cockpit, wiring, brakes, backup fuel pump, front end bushings, and all four wheels.
Upon discovering these alleged defects, Plaintiff asked Defendants to produce the MGB's full history. On June 9, 2016, Defendants produced Mr. Kacher's Internet advertisement which disclosed rust issues on the undercarriage and wheels. When questioned about the rust issues, Defendants dismissed them as "meaningless." Id. at 6, ¶ 30 (internal quotation marks omitted).
According to the Complaint, Mr. Kacher's advertisement and Defendants' inquiries regarding the information disclosed in that advertisement establish that Defendants had not inspected the MGB and had not determined that it was in excellent condition before purchasing it from Mr. Kacher. Instead, Plaintiff contends Defendants purchased the MGB from Mr. Kacher in "extremely poor condition" and "quickly placed [it] back on the market" for $17,900, approximately twice Defendants' $9,000 acquisition cost. (Doc. 1 at 6, ¶ 32.) In Plaintiff's estimation, the fair market value of the MGB when Plaintiff purchased it from Defendants was no more than $2,000 as a "parts car only." Id. at 6, ¶ 33.
On December 2, 2016, Defendants rejected Plaintiff's settlement offer. Plaintiff then inspected the MGB on a lift for the first time, discovering the following concerns:
the chrome bumpers were not new but rather [the] original and coated with rust on the underside, frame damage, extensive rust to the undercarriage and rocker panels, structural damage due to rust, and bondo applied to cover body damage and repair to both rear fenders, and the upper and lower rear panels.
Id. at 6, ¶ 34. Noticing damage to the left rear panel and rear valence, Plaintiff determined the MGB had been in at least two accidents.
To improve the MGB to its advertised condition, Plaintiff had the electrical and mechanical systems repaired or replaced and rebuilt the body and structural components of the MGB, "all at substantial costs." Id. at 7, ¶ 36. In making these repairs, Plaintiff "lost use of the [MGB] for the entire 2016 six month driving season and one month of the 2017 season." Id. at 7, ¶ 37.
"[F]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, as such, lack the power to disregard such limits as have been imposed by the Constitution or Congress." Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Kentucky, 704 F.3d 208, 213 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). "If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In his Complaint, Plaintiff invokes the court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) which states that the federal "district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, . . . and is between[] . . . citizens of different States[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
As the party asserting subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff has the burden of establishing its existence. A plaintiff invoking diversity jurisdiction "must demonstrate a 'reasonable probability' that the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied[.]" Pyskaty v. Wide World of Cars, LLC, 856 F.3d 216,...
To continue reading
Request your trial