PHILADELPHIA – A Maryland man who had filed litigation against a Montgomery County Mazda dealership and other entities after purchasing a sub-standard used automobile has now chosen to voluntarily dismiss his case.
Vislesh Macherla of Derwood, Md. filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on May 5 versus North Penn Imports (doing business as “North Penn Mazda”) and Johnathan Sell of Colmar, Mazda North American Operations of Irvine, Calif. and Wells Fargo Dealer Services of Blue Bell.
For diversity of citizenship, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 5.
“On Jan. 18, 2016, the plaintiff purchased a used 2015 Mazda 6 from North Penn Imports. At the time of purchase, plaintiff received a copy of a Carfax and an AutoCheck report (prepared by independent third parties) showing no record of reported accidents. Plaintiff also received a document entitled ‘Mazda Certified Pre-Owned 150-Point Vehicle Inspection’ dated Dec. 15, 2015, bearing the signatures of North Penn’s Manager and Certified Technician. That report also allegedly indicated that the vehicle had not been in any accidents or damaged,” according to the lawsuit.
“According to the complaint, the vehicle suffered malfunctions from the time of purchase including alignment, insecure front license plate, loose front bumper, inoperable front headlamps and fog lights, loose molding, throttle body, dead battery, and map light malfunction. Plaintiff also noticed that the paint was chipping and peeling.”
Macherla said he then took the vehicle to an unidentified body shop, where he was allegedly informed of indications that the vehicle had been in a severe car accident. He claimed that if he had known that the vehicle had been involved in an accident, he would not have purchased it.
Mazda North American Operations filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 12. A complaint that MNAO said was significant for what it did not say.
“It does not allege facts to show that North Penn or its employee, Sell, acted as its agents in connection with the sale of a used vehicle. It does not say that MNAO made any representations, extended any warranties, or was even remotely involved in transferring the title or arranging financing (because it did not and was not). It does not say that anyone from MNAO ever communicated with the plaintiff or ever laid eyes on the plaintiff or the vehicle (because no one did),” per the dismissal motion.
“It does not say that MNAO was involved in the dealer’s acquisition of the vehicle or the inspection performed by the dealer. It does not say that MNAO ever communicated with the plaintiff or did anything to facilitate plaintiff’s purchase of the vehicle. There is no allegation that MNAO was even aware that the vehicle was on the dealer’s lot, let alone that MNAO advertised it for sale.”
However, on June 14, Macherla filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the complaint without prejudice. Therefore, the prior motion to dismiss from MNAO was rendered moot.
Prior to dismissal and for counts of fraud, breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breaches of express and implied warranties, violation of the Professions and Occupations Act, civil conspiracy and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the plaintiff was seeking damages, jointly and severally, in excess of $50,000, plus attorney’s fees, interest, costs, treble damages and such other relief, including equitable relief and rescission/revocation/cancellation, as the Court may have deemed appropriate.
The plaintiff was represented by William C. Bensley of Bensley Law Offices, in Philadelphia.
The defendants were represented by William James Rogers of Thomson Rhodes & Cowie in Pittsburgh, plus David R. Fine of K&L Gates, in Harrisburg.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-02648
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com