Scaffidi v. United States

Citation425 F.Supp.2d 1172
Decision Date28 November 2005
Docket NumberNo. CV-S-04-1366-PMP LRL.,CV-S-04-1366-PMP LRL.
PartiesNicholas S. SCAFFIDI, Plaintiff, v. UNITED NISSAN, a Nevada corporation; Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation, a California corporation; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. Nicholas C. Scaffidi, Plaintiff, v. United Nissan, a Nevada corporation; Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation, a California corporation; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. Forman Automotive, Inc., dba United Nissan, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Nicholas S. Scaffidi, Third-Party Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Nevada

Grenville T. Pridham, Law Office of Grenville Pridham, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiffs, ThirdParty Defendant and Counter Defendant.

Robert J. Caldwell, Ann L. Thomas, Kolesar & Leatham, Chtd., Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants and ThirdParty Plaintiff.

Jeffrey A. Bendavid, Moran & Associates, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants, ThirdParty Plaintiff and Counter Claimant.

Nicholas S. Scaffidi, Marietta, CA, Pro se.

ORDER

PRO, Chief Judge.

Presently before this Court is Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff United Nissan's Motion for Summary Judgment of All Counts Alleged in Nicholas S. Scaffidi's Complaint or Alternatively a Motion to Exclude Spoiled Evidence (Doc. # 78) filed on July 5, 2005. Plaintiff Nicholas C. Scaffidi filed Nicholas C. Scaffidi's Brief in Opposition to Defendant United Nissan's Motion for Summary Judgment of All Counts Alleged in Nicholas C. Scaffidi's Complaint or Alternatively a Motion to Exclude Spoiled Evidence and Motion to Dismiss Claims Three and Four of Nicholas C. Scaffidi's Complaint (Doc. ## 92, 93) on July 25, 2005.

Defendant Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation ("NMAC") filed Defendant NMAC's Joinder in Defendant United Nissan's Motion for Summary Judgment or Alternatively Motion to Exclude Spoiled Evidence (Doc. # 79) on July 6, 2005. Plaintiff Nicholas S. Scaffidi filed Plaintiff Nicholas S. Scaffidi's Brief in Opposition to Defendant United Nissan's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 94) on July 25, 2005. Defendant NMAC filed NMAC's Reply to Nicholas S. Scaffidi's Brief in Opposition to Defendant United Nissan's Motion for Summary Judgment or to Exclude Spoiled Evidence (Doc. # 99) on August 5, 2005. Defendant/ Third-Party Plaintiff United Nissan filed United Nissan's Reply to Plaintiff Nicholas C. Scaffidi's Brief in Opposition to Defendant United Nissan's Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant/ Third-Party Plaintiff United Nissan's Strike Certain Allegations made by Grenville Pridham in Plaintiff Nicholas C. Scaffidi's Opposition (Doc. ## 103, 104, 105, 106) on August 4, 2005. NMAC filed Defendant NMAC's Joinder in Defendant United Nissan's Reply to Plaintiff Nicholas S. Scaffidi's Brief in Opposition to Defendant United Nissan's Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant NMAC's Joinder in Defendant United Nissan's Motion to Strike Certain Allegations Made by Grenville Pridham, Esq. in Plaintiff Nicholas S. Scaffidi's Opposition (Doc. ## 114, 115) on August 19, 2005.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of a contract dispute regarding Defendant United Nissan's sale of a used Chevrolet Camaro ("Camaro"), manufacturer's serial number 2G1FP32KX12113873, to Nicholas S. Scaffidi. (Three-Day Notice of Intent to Take Default [Doc. # 19], Ex. A.) On October 1, 2002, Nicholas S. Scaffidi bought the car from United Nissan ("Nissan") for $26,566.06. (Compl.; Three-Day Notice of Intent to Take Default, Ex. A.) Nicholas S. Scaffidi traded a 1995 Pontiac Trans Am ("Trans Am"), in exchange for a $5000 credit as part of the negotiated deal for the Camaro. (Three-Day Notice of Intent to Take Default, Ex. A.) Nicholas C. Scaffidi is Nicholas S. Scaffidi's father.

Plaintiffs' claims involve three separate issues. First, Plaintiffs allege Defendants sold the Camaro without disclosing major structural damage the car had sustained and that Defendants refused to honor the warranties covering the contract. (Compl. at 7-8.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants did not honor Nicholas S. Scaffidi's legal rescission of the contract. (Compl. at 7-8.) Second, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants fraudulently conducted the credit application process and contract negotiation in connection with the sale of the Camaro. (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiffs allege Defendants negligently and wilfully used the social security number of Nicholas C. Scaffidi, Nicholas S. Scaffidi's father, to sell the Camaro to Nicholas S. Scaffidi. (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants manipulated the sales process to add additional unapproved fees to the final sale price. (Id. at 7.)

Plaintiffs and Defendants offer significantly different versions of the transaction. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants sold Nicholas S. Scaffidi the Camaro without divulging significant prior damage, and then refused to honor the warranty on the car. Plaintiffs argue that a window placard, allegedly removed from the window of the Camaro, establishes that the Camaro was covered by a partial warranty. (Pl. Nicholas S. Scaffidi's Brief in Opp'n to Def. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp.'s Mot. for Summ. J. ["Pl.'s Opp'n"], Ex. 4.) Specifically, the window placard, which appears to be titled "Buyers Guide," provides:

Limited Warranty. The dealer will pay 50% of the labor and 50% of the parts for the covered systems that fail during the warranty period.

(Id.) The window placard specifies the duration of the warranty as "1 month or 1000 miles." (Id.) NMAC offers a different buyers guide for the Camaro, VIN 2G1FP32KX12113873 (Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp.'s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment NMAC's Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. A at Ex. 2.) This Buyers Guide states that the Camaro is sold "AS IS—NO WARRANTY." (Id.) The Buyers Guide further states, "YOU WILL PAY ALL COSTS FOR ANY REPAIRS. The dealer assumes no responsibility for any repairs regardless of any oral statements about the vehicle." (Id.) The Simple Interest and Vehicle Contract between Nicholas S. Scaffidi and Nissan provides:

If you are buying a used vehicle with this contract, as indicated in the description of the vehicle above, federal regulation may require a special buyer's guide to be displayed on the window.

(Three-Day Notice of Intent to Take Default, Ex. A.)

The parties provide two copies of an "After Sale Work Agreement," both signed by Nicholas S. Scaffidi. (Def./ Third-Party Pl. United Nissan's Mot. for Summ. J. of All Accounts Alleged by Nicholas S Scaffidi's Compl. or Alternatively a Mot. to Exclude Spoiled Evidence ["Def.'s Mot. Summ. J."], Ex. B.) The first copy, dated October 1, 2002, includes the typed statement, "SOLD AS IS OR AS EQUIPPED—NOTHING ELSE PROMISED OR IMPLIED—PLEASE INITIAL," next to which Nicholas S. Scaffidi signed his initials. (Id. (emphasis in original).) That contract was not signed by a Nissan sales manager. (Id.) A second copy, which is undated, includes the handwritten statement, "SOLD AS IS—Nothing Else Promised or Implied." (Id.) Nicholas S. Scaffidi did not initial next to the handwritten statement. However, he did initial the agreement in five other places and placed his full signature at the bottom of the agreement. (Id.) Both copies include the following statement:

Any and all promises made to you, by any representative of United Nissan, must be in writing or will NOT be honored . . . .

(Id.)

With regard to the transaction, Nicholas S. Scaffidi alleges Nissan affirmatively misrepresented the car's actual price, and manipulated the credit process to trick Scaffidi into paying more for the car. (Compl. at 2-3.) Plaintiffs further allege that Nissan fraudulently used Nicholas C. Scaffidi's social security number to process the credit application. (Id. at 6-7.) Nissan contends that Nicholas S. Scaffidi fraudulently provided his father's social security number to buy the car. (Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. at 25-26.)

Virginia Gunn ("Gunn"), a Senior Account Representative for Defendant Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation

("NMAC"), states in a sworn affidavit that as part of the credit application process, Nicholas S. Scaffidi listed his social security number as XXX-XX-9451. (NMAC's Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. A, Ex. 2. at 2.) On October 2, 2005, NMAC approved Nicholas Scaffidi for financing. (Id. at 2-3.) Gunn states that on October 12, 2005, Nicholas S. Scaffidi informed NMAC that the social security number provided was Nicholas C. Scaffidi's social security number, yet it was Nicholas S. Scaffidi who signed the Camaro's sales contract. (Id. at 3.) As of the time of the affidavit, Gunn states that Nicholas S. Scaffidi has not paid any payments for the Camaro. (Id. at 4.) The amount due and owing on the Camaro was $29,733.94, as of June 17, 2005. (Id. at 5.)

Immediately following the car purchase, Nissan assigned the loan to NMAC, making NMAC the creditor. (NMAC's Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. A.) Approximately three weeks after Nicholas S. Scaffidi signed the initial contract, Plaintiff alleges Nissan called him and offered him a lower annual percentage rate on his car. (Id.) Nicholas S. Scaffidi allegedly returned to Nissan and signed a second contract, which also was assigned to NMAC. (Id.)

Within days of driving the car off the lot, Nicholas S. Scaffidi claims the car experienced significant mechanical problems, including wiring and brake issues. (Id.) Nicholas S. Scaffidi allegedly took the car to Fairway Chevrolet, which informed him that the car had been in a major accident, had underwent significant mechanical and structural work, including the replacement of many parts, none of which would be covered under the manufacturer's warranty. Plaintiffs provide no evidence of this inspection. Nicholas S. Scaffidi claims he took the car back to Nissan for repairs. After getting the car back from Nissan, Nicholas S. Scaffidi allegedly continued to experience problems with the Camaro. Again, Plaintiffs provide no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Georgiou Studio, Inc. v. Boulevard Invest, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • 6 Octubre 2009
    ...Frauds. 2. Fraud and Deceit In Nevada, the tort of deceit is treated as the tort of fraudulent representation. Scaffidi v. United Nissan, 425 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1185 (D.Nev.2005); Pac. Maxon, Inc. v. Wilson, 96 Nev. 867, 619 P.2d 816, 817 (1980). Therefore the Court will consider the elements ......
  • Hunt v. Mazaharirvesh, No. A06-2134 (Minn. App. 12/24/2007)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Minnesota
    • 24 Diciembre 2007
    ...specifically that the Caravan was being "sold as-is," and, therefore, effectively disclaimed any warranty. See Scaffidi v. United Nissan, 425 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1182 (D. Nev. 2005) (granting summary judgment to dealership on MMWA claim because auto sale contract stated vehicle was sold "as i......
  • PN Ii, Inc. v. Aspen Mfg., Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • 28 Septiembre 2017
    ...window placard on a car stating that it was sold "AS IS - NO WARRANTY" effectively disclaimed the implied warranty of merchantability. 425 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1186 (D. Nev. 2005). The court held that the term "as is" sufficiently called the buyer's attention to the exclusion of implied warran......
  • Rehberger v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 3:11-00085
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • 30 Mayo 2012
    ...582 F. Supp. 1009, 1026 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (including "basis of the bargain language in subparagraph (B)); Scaffidi v. United Nissan, 425 F. Supp.2d 1172, 1181 (D. Nev. 2005) (same). However, Section 2301(6) actually reads:Page 6(6) The term "written warranty" means—(A) any written affirmatio......
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Consumer Protection Law Developments (Second) - Volume II
    • 2 Febrero 2016
    ...v. Robson, 915 A.2d 1298 (Vt. 2006), 1145 Saxon Fin. Group v Rath, 2012 WL 3276662 (S.D. Fla. 2012), 807 Scaffidi v. United Nissan, 425 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (D. Nev. 2005), 998 Scandrett v. Greenhouse, 11 N.W.2d 510 (Wis.1943), 1188 Schering-Plough Corp. v. FTC, 402 F.3d 1056 (11th Cir. 2005), ......
  • State Consumer Protection Laws
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Consumer Protection Law Developments (Second) - Volume II
    • 2 Febrero 2016
    ...the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Picardi v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 251 P.3d 723, 725 (Nev. 2011); Scaffidi v. United Nissan, 425 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1184 (D. Nev. 2005); Sattari v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 471 F. App’x 627, 628 (9th Cir. 2012); Picus v. Wal-Mart Stores, 256 F.R.D. 651, 657......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT