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

NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF

A Case Management Conference is set for:

DATE: SEP-17-2014

TIME: 10:30AM

PLACE: Department 610400 McAllister StreetSan 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-110no later than 15 days before the case management conference. However, it would facilitatethe issuance of a case management order without an appearance at the casemanagement conference if the case management statement is filed, served and lodged inDepartment 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 andcomplaint. Proof of service subsequently filed with this court shall so state. This case iseligible 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 CIVILCASE PARTICIPATE IN EITHER MEDIATION, JUDICIAL OR NON-JUDICIAL ARBITRATION, THE EARLY SETTLEMENT PROGRAM ORSOME SUITABLE FORM OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTIONPRIOR TO A TRIAL.(SEE LOCAL RULE 4)

Plaintiff must serve a copy of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Information Package on eachdefendant along with the complaint. All counsel must discuss ADR with clients and opposingcounsel and provide clients with a copy of the Alternative Dispute Resolution InformationPackage prior to filing the Case Management Statement.

[DEFENDANTS: Attending the Case Management Conference does not take theplace of filing a written response to the complaint. You must file a writtenresponse with the court within the time limit required by law. See Summons.]

Superior Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Coordinator400 McAllister Street, Room 103San Francisco, CA 94102(415) 551-3876See Local Rules 3.3, 6.0 C and 10 B re stipulation to judge pro tem.

SUMMONS(ClTACION JUDI C/AL) WR COURT USE ONLY(SOLO PARR U50 DE lA CORTE)

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: MERCEDES-BENZ U. S . A. , LLC and(AVISO AL DEMANDADO): DOES 1 through 50, inclusive

YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: DIGBY ADLER GROUP, LLC(LO EST~4 DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTEJ: dba BANDAGO LLC, onbehalf 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 informationbelow.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 yourcase. 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 CourtsOnline Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, askthe 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 propertymay 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 attorneyreferral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locatethese 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 andcosts 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 acontinuacibnTiene 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 esteren 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 labiblioteca 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 miteque 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 lepods quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mes advertencia.Hay olros requisitos legates. Es recomendable que Ilame a un abogatlo inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede l/amar a un servicio de

remisidn a abogados. Si no puede pager a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos pare obtener serv~cros legates gratuitos de unprograms de servicios legates sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Lega! Services,(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 elcolegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la torte time derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los coslos exentos poi imponer un gravamen sobrecualquier 2cuperaci6n de $i0, 000 6 m9s de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesidn de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene quepager el gravamen de la torte antes de que fa torte pueda desechar el caso.e name an a ress o t e cou IS: CASE NUMBER'

(EI Hombre y direccibn de !a code es); rN~ma~aer 9~0~ ~, 1 ~ _ G ~ OSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ~~ ~~ ~ J O aCounty of.San Francisco400 McAllister StreetSan Francisco, California 99102The 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):ANTHONY L. LABEL, N0. 205920 (415) 673-4800 (415) 771-5845THE VEEN FIRM, P.C.P.O. Box 7296 ~~.~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~r~~~TSan Francisco, CA 99120-7296

(~Fecha) .APR 1 4 Z0~4Clerk, by

(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 servedSEAL)

~. ~ as an individual defendant.2. 0 as the person sued under the fictitious name of (speci/y):

3. ~ on behalf of (specify):

under: 0 CCP 416..10 (corporation)0 CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation)0 CCP 416.40 {association or partnership)

other (specify):~1 by personal delivery on (date):

~,1 ~ ''a p.' E~ ~ ~ >

~ ~,~ ,

CCP 416.60 (minor)[~ CCP 416.70 (conservatee)

CCP 416.90 (authorized person)

1 or+

Form Adopted for MarWafory Use SUMMONS Code of Gvil Procedure 472.20, 465Judicial Council of California SU Ut QI1SSUM100 (Rev. July 1, 2009] f7. Tali ie

12

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 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 220San Francisco, CA 94102P.O. Box 7296San Francisco, CA 94120-7296Tel: (415) 673-4800Fax: (415) 771-5845

CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLPJonathan E. Gertler (Bar No. 111531)Dan L. Gildor (Bar No. 223027)Samuel P. Cheadle (Baz No. 2685'95)42 Miller AvenueMill Valley, California 94941Tel: (415) 381-5599Fax: (415) 381-5572

Attorneys for Plaintiff Digby Adler Group, LLCand the Proposed Class

;:~;-x,~

~~C~k

!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 ) Ca ~ No~ ~ ~ ~ RBANDAGO LLC, on behalf of itself and all )others similarly situated, ~ CLASS ACTION

Plaintiff, ~ COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OFv. ~ EXPRESS WARRANTY; PRODUCT

LIABILITY, FRAUDULENTMERCEDES-BENZ U.S.A., LLC; and DOES ) CONCEALMENT, AND UNFAIR1 through 50, inclusive, ) BUSINESS PRACTICES

Defendants. ~ DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

~~ ~%i) '~., E~'

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12

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

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

~ alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. 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 of the Class to pay for the vehicle repairs. Moreover, Defendant has known about

propensity of the a/c units to leak water into the interior of the 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 of the class have incurred as a result of the 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

5. Plaintiff Bandago is a limited liability company registered in California with its

principle place of business in San Francisco.

2CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12

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 of the wrongful acts alleged herein, is responsible in some

manner for the matters alleged herein, and is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff Plaintiff willseek 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 of the other defendants. Each defendant is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff and tothe members of the proposed Class.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has jurisdiction over this controversy because Plaintiff is registered inCalifornia, 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'swrongful 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

3CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12

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 of time 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 of the 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

4CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12

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

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 of the 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 of the

sunroof aperture over the van's rear compartment. It is driven by its own compressor. The roof-

mounted 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 outletsfor improved comfort and well being. Mercedes installs the a/c unit prior to distribution and sale

of the 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 of those 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 of the previous-

~ generation model vans in its fleet. Given that Bandago's vans are dispersed across the United

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.

sCLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

23

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

Bandago arranges its purchases such that it orders all of the new vehicles to be added to its fleet in

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 Daimler-

Chrysler. At all times, Mercedes has repeatedly assured Bandago that it was aware of the

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 of the 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 Plaintiff s staff have contacted Mercedes' Customer Assistance Center

("CAC") on multiple occasions to _complain about leaks in and around the a/c unit. Plaintiff is

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

GCLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12

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 of the 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 of the 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

7CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12

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 of the 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 of the a/c unit or its manufacture and

installation, Plaintiff would not have adopted the Sprinter as its flagship vehicle and continued to

sCLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12

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

~:~

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

~ ~ pay as much for the defective vans.

TOLLING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

25. The causes of action alleged herein accrued upon discovery of the unacceptably

high susceptibility of the 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 of their claims through the exercise of reasonable

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

~ a/c unit, it failed to inform Plaintiff and members of the class of these facts.

27. Mercedes was and is under a continuous duty to disclose to Plaintiff and members

of the 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 of the class had no way of knowing or suspecting the

~ a/c units were defective and were highly susceptible to leaking, Defendant is estopped from

relying on any statute of limitations in its defense of this action.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

29. 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 of this 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.

9CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12

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) the judge presiding over this action;(d) 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 leakyroof-mounted air conditioning units.

31. The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all claims would beimpracticable. 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 of their claims through this class action will benefit both the parties and the Court.

Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action by published and/or mailed notice.

33. There is awell-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact

affecting the parties represented in this action. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all

members of the 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;

10CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12

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

(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 of the 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.

34. Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the class.

Mercedes' conduct has caused Plaintiff and members of the class to sustain the same or

substantially similar injuries and damages. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to the interests

of the other members of the class. Plaintiff and all members of the 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 of the 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

~tCLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12

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

experienced in complex class action litigation, including automobile warranty and consumer class

actions such as the present action.

36. The nature of this action makes a class action the superior and appropriate

procedure to afford relief for the wrongs alleged herein. Because the damages suffered by the I

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 of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members againstDefendant, and would establish incompatible standards of conduct. Further, a class action is in

the interests of justice because many class members are likely unaware that Defendant's conductis 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 asingle court.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION(Breach of Express Warranty)

37. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs alleged above as if fully set forth herein.

38. Defendant expressly warranted that Sprinter vans would be free from defects in

material, workmanship or factory preparation and that it would cover "the cost of all parts and

labor needed to repair any item on your Sprinter vehicle." Plaintiff relied on the warranty in

purchasing the Sprinter vans. Had the Sprinter vans not been warranted, Plaintiff would not have

purchased the vans and/or not have agreed to pay as much for the vans as he did.

39. The Sprinter vans sold to Plaintiff and the class were defective in material,

workmanship, and/or factory preparation; the Sprinter vans would experience water leaks through

the a/c units. Investigations. by Mercedes and the technical service bulletins issued by Mercedes

state that the leaks can be caused by improper installation of the a/c unit and defects in the sealant

and/or the installation of the sealant used around the a/c unit.

t2CLASS ACT10N COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

23

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

40. 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the 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 of their vehicles because of theaforementioned 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)

42. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs alleged above as if fully set forth herein.

43. 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.)

44. Mercedes has, since at least 2007, manufactured and placed Sprinter vans with a/c

units on the market in California for the public to purchase.

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

the Sprinter vans would experience water leaks through the a/c units. Investigations by Mercedes

and the technical service bulletins issued by Mercedes state that the leaks can be caused by

improper installation of the a/c unit and defects in the sealant and/or the installation of the sealant

used around the a/c unit.

13CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12

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

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

', ~ members of the class, that the a/c unit was prone to leak water into the interior of the van.

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

of the 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 Plaintiff s 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)

49. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs alleged above as if fully set forth herein.

50. Mercedes has, since at least 2007, manufactured and placed Sprinter vans with a/c

units on the market in California for the public to purchase.

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

the Sprinter vans would experience water leaks through the a/c units. Investigations by Mercedes

and the technical service bulletins issued by Mercedes state that the leaks can be caused by

14CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12

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

improper installation of the a/c unit and defects in the sealant and/or the installation of the sealant

I I used around the a/c unit.

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. These defects manifested themselves within the warranty period.

54. At all relevant times, Mercedes had superior and exclusive knowledge of the

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 of the 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 of the 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

ECLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12

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

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 of the 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, 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.

60. Business &Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (the "Unfair Competition

Law" or "UCL") defines unfair competition to include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business

16CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

23

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

act or practice. Unfair competition includes engaging in a business practice whose utility is

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 of the 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

anyone but Mercedes. Had Plaintiff and members of the class known about the propensity for the

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 of the 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.

17CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12

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

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Unfair Competition Fraudulent Business Practices)

65. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs alleged above as i~ fully set forth herein.

66. 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

reasonable consumer.

67. Mercedes has, since at least 2007, manufactured and placed Sprinter vans with alc

units on the market in California for the public to purchase.

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

the Sprinter vans would experience water leaks through the a/c units. Investigations by Mercedes

and the technical service bulletins issued by Mercedes state that the leaks can be caused by

improper installation of the a/c unit and defects in the sealant and/or the installation of the sealant

used around the a/c unit.

69. The vehicles also manifested a design defectno matter what repairs were made,

the a1c 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.

70. These defects manifested themselves within the warranty period.

71. At all relevant times, Mercedes had superior and exclusive knowledge of the

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.

72. 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 of the class-would have liked to have

1sCLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TWAL

12

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 of the a/c units on the Sprinter vans to leak water

into the interior of the 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 of the 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 of the 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.

19CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12

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

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

~ ~ transported in the vehicles.

76. As a result of Mercedes' practices, Plaintiff and members of the 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.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Declaratory Relied

77. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs alleged above as if fully set forth herein.

78. An actual controversy has arisen between Plaintiff and members of the class, on

the one hand, and Mercedes, on the other hand, as to their respective rights, remedies and

obligations. Specifically, Plaintiff contends and Defendant denies, that:

(a) Sprinter vans equipped with a/c units manifest a defect in the design of the

a/c unit that results in water leaking into the interior of the van;

(b) Sprinter vans equipped with a/c units manifest a manufacturing defect that

results in water leaking into the interior of the van;

(c) Mercedes has failed to honor its warranty that the Sprinter vans with a/c

units would be free of any defect in material, workmanship, or factory

preparation;

(d) Mercedes is liable for damage to the vehicle and other property as a result

of water leaking into the interior of the van through and around the a/c

units in Sprinter vans;

20CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12

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

(e) Mercedes has known or should have known that the a/c units were likely to

allow water to leak into the interior of the 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 of the

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.

79. 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;

2. injunctive and declaratory relief as pled or as the Court may deem proper;

3. an award of damages and restitution in favor of Plaintiff and the class;

4. interest as allowable by law;

5. an award of reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by applicable law;

6. all costs of suit; and

7. such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

///

///

2lCLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12

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

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all claims so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: Apri1~~2014 THE VEEN FIRM, P.C.CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP

By: IA . ~_Steven A. Kronenberg

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed la s

22CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

cf~~dk"~' ors,

N~~~~ ~ ~4~s Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco ~~

" ~' ~ ~" Alternative Dispute Resolution`}'~~^ ti~~~ ~ Program Information Package ~~ ~~

The plaintiff must serve a copy of the ADR information packageon 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 availablefor settling a dispute without a trial. There are many different ADR processes, the most commonforms of which are mediation, aru~t~ atio~ ar~d settle ~ ~~nt cor~f~r~nces. fn AJR, t. aired, impartialpeople decide disputes or help parties decide disputes themselves. They can help partiesresolve disputes without having to go to court.

WHY CHOOSE ADR?"It is the policy of the Superior Court that every noncriminal, nonjuvenile case participate eitherin an early settlement conference, mediation, arbitration, early neutral evaluation or some otheralternative 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 mayvoluntarily 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 thispacket) at the clerk's office located at 400 McAllister Street, Room 103;

Indicating your ADR preference on the Case Management Statement (also attached tothis packet); or

Contacting the court's ADR office (see below) or the Bar Association of SanFrancisco'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 Resolution400 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 civilmatters; 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 ~ mutuallyacceptable settlement that resolves all or part of a dispute early in the litigation process.

(A) THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO (BASF) EARLY SETTLEMENTPROGRAM (ESP): ESP remains as one of the Court's ADR programs (see Local Rule 4.3) butparties must select the program the Court no longer will order parties into ESP.

Operation: Panels of pre-screened attorneys (one plaintiff, one defense counsel) eachwith at least 10 years' trial experience provide a minimum of two hours of settlement conferencetime, including evaluation of strengths and weakness of a case and potential case value. Onoccasion, a panelist with extensive experience in both plaintiff and defense roles serves as asole panelist. BASF handles notification to all parties, conflict checks with the panelists, and fullcase 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 forparties represented by the same counsel. Waivers are available to those who qualify. For moreinformation, call .Marilyn King at 415-782-8905, email adr(a~sfbar.orq or see the enclosedbrochure.

(B) MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES: Parties may elect to apply to thePresiding Judge's department for aspecially-set mandatory settlement conference. See LocalRule 5.0 for further instructions. Upon approval of the Presiding Judge, the court wil{ schedulethe 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 facilitatesnegotiations. The goal of mediation is to reach a mutually satisfactory agreeme;~it, beforeincurring the expense of going to court, that resolves all or part of a dispute after exploring theinterests, needs, and priorities of the parties in light of relevant evidence and the law. Amediator strives to bring the parties to a mutually beneficial settlement of the dispute.

(A) MEDIATION SERVICES OF THE 'BAR ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO, incooperation with the Superior Court, is designed to help civil litigants resolve disputes beforethey incur substantial costs in litigation. While it is best to utilize the program at the outset oflitigation, parties may use the program at any time while a case is pending.

Operation: Experienced professional mediators, screened and approved, provide onehour of preparation time and the first two hours of mediation time. Mediation time beyond that ischarged at the mediator's hourly rate. BASF pre-screens all mediators based upon stricteducational and experience requirements. Parties can select their mediator from the panels atwww.sfbar.orq/mediation or BASF can assist with mediator selection. The BASF websitecontains photographs, biographies, and videos of the mediators as well as testimonials to assistwith 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 theprogram is 64% and the satisfaction rate is 99%.

Cost: BASF charges an administrative fee of $295 per party. The hourly mediator feebeyond the first three hours will vary depending on the mediator selected. Waivzrs of theadministrative fee are available to those who qualify. For more information, call Marilyn King at415-782-8905, email adr~sfbar.or4 or see the enclosed brochure.

(B) PRIVATE MEDIATION: Although not currently a part of the court's ADR program, civildisputes may also be resolved through private mediation. Parties may elect any privatemediator or mediation organization of their choice; the selection and coordination of privatemediation is the responsibility of the parties. Parties may find mediators and organizations onthe Internet. i he 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 evidencethrough exhibits and testimony. The arbitrator applies the law to the facts of the case andmakes 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 isearlier, 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 theamount in controversy is $50,000 or less, and no party seeks equitable relief, shall be ordered toarbitration. (Upon stipulation of all parties, other civil matters may be submitted to judicialarbitration.) A case is ordered to arbitration after the Case Management Conference. Anarbitrator is chosen from the court's arbitration panel. Arbitrations are generally held between 7and 9 months after a complaint has been filed. Judicial arbitration is not binding unless allparties agree to be bound by the arbitrator's decision. Any party may request a trial within 60days 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 filea stipulation to mediate after the filing of a complaint. If settlement is not reached throughmediation, 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 voluntarilyconsent to arbitration. If all parties agree, private arbitration may be binding and the parties giveup the right to judicial review of the arbitrator's decision. In private arbitration, the parties selecta private arbitrator and are responsible for paying the arbitrator's fees.

TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THE COURT'S ADR PROGRAMS, PLEASE COMPLETE THEATTACHED STIPULATION TO ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND SUBMIT IT TO THECOURT. YOU MUST ALSO CONTACT BASF TO ENROLL IN THE LISTED BASF PROGRAMS. THECOURT 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 FRANCISCO400 McAllister StreetSan Francisco, CA 94102-4514

PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:CASE NUMBER:

STIPULATION TO ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)DEPARTMENT 610

1) The parties hereby stipulate that this action shall be submitted to the following ADR process:

q Early Settlement Program of the Bar Association of San Francisco (BASF) -Pre-screened experiencedattorneys provide a minimum of 2 hours of settlement conference time for a BASF administrative fee of $250 perparty. Waivers are available to those who qualify. BASF handles notification to all parties, conflict checks with thepanelists, and full case management. www.sfbar.orq/esp

q Mediation Services of BASF - Experienced professional mediators, screened and approved, provide one hour ofpreparation and the first two hours of mediation time for a BASF administrative fee of $250 per party. Mediationtime beyond that is charged at the mediator's hourly rate. Waivers of the administrative fee are available to thosewho qualify. BASF assists parties with mediator selection, conflicts checks and full case management.www, sfbar.orq/mediation

q Private Mediation - Mediators and ADR provider organizations charge by the hour or by the day, current marketrates. ADR organizations may also charge an administrative fee. Parties may find experienced mediators andorganizations on the Internet.

q Judicial Arbitration -Non-binding arbitration is available to cases in which the amount in controversy is $50,000or 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

q Other ADR process (describe)

2) The parties agree that the ADR Process shall be completed by (date):

3) Plaintiffs) and Defendants) further agree as follows:

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

q Plaintiff q Defendant q Cross-defendant Plaintiff q Defendant q Cross-defendant

Dated: Dated:

q Additional signatures) attached

ADR-2 o~nz STIPULATION TO ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

rnn_~ ~ nATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bay number, and address): - - ~ - FOR COURT USE ONLY

TELEPHONE NO.: FAX NO. (Optional):

E-MAID ADDRESS (Optional):

ATTORNEY FOR (Name):

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OFSTREET ADDRESS:

MAILING ADDRESS:

CITY AND ZIP CODE: -

BRANCH NAME:

PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NUMBER:

(Check one): 0 UNLIMITED CASE Q LIMITED CASE(Amount demanded (Amount demanded is $25,000exceeds $25,000) or less)

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 of involvement in case, and date by whichthey maybe served):

4. Description of casea. Type of case in 0 complaint cross-complaint (Describe, including causes of action):

Page t of SForm Adopted for Mandatory Use CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ~ cap. R~~eS Or co~~cJudiaal Council of Caliipmia

rules 3.726-3.730CM-110 Rev_ July t, 2011] www.courts. ca.gov

CM-110CASE NUMBER: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 anddamages claimed, including medical expenses to date (indicate source and amount], estimated future medical expenses, lostearnings to date, and estimated future lost earnings. ff equrfable relief is sought, describe the nature of the relief.)

[~ (!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 Q a jury trial ~ a nonjury trial. (If more than one party, provide the name of each partyrequesting a jury trial):

6. Trial datea. [~ The trial has been set for (date):b. 0 No 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 trialThe 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 thecourt and community programs in this case.

(1) For parties represented by counsel: Counsel ~ has 0 has not provided the ADR information package identifiedin 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 thestatutory limit.

(2) ~ Plaintiff elects to refer this case to judicial arbitration and agrees to limit recovery to the amount specified in Code ofCivil Procedure section 1141.11.

(3} [~ This case is exempt from judicial arbitration under rule 3.811 of the California Rules of Courtor from civil actionmediation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1775 et seq. (specify exemption};

CM-110 [Rev. July 1, 2011] CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Page 2 0( 5

CM-110PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: case NunnaeR:

~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, orhave already participated in (check all that apply and provide the specified information):

The party or parties completing If the party or parties completing this form in the case have agreed tothis form are willing to participate in or have already completed an ADR process or processes,participate in the following ADR indicate the status of the processes (attach a copy of the parties' ADRprocesses (check all that apply): stipulation):

Q Mediation session not yet scheduled

O Q Mediation session scheduled for (date):(1) Mediation

Agreed to complete mediation by (date):

Q Mediation completed on (date):

Q Settlement conference not yet scheduled

(2) Settlement 0 ~ Settlement conference scheduled for (date):conference 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 ~ 0 Judicial arbitration scheduled for (date):arbitration Q Agreed to complete judicial arbitration by (date):

Q Judicial arbitration completed on (date):

Q Private arbitration not yet scheduled

(5) Binding private ~ ~ Private arbitration scheduled for (date):arbitration 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 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Page

3 015

- CASE NUMBER:PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:

11. Insurancea. ~ Insurance carrier, if any, for party filing this statement (name):b. Reservation of rights: 0 Yes 0 Noc. ~ Coverage issues will significantly affect resolution of this case (explain):

12. JurisdictionIndicate 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 coordinationa, 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. BifurcationQ 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

0 The party or parties expect to file the following motions before trial (specify moving party, type of motion, and issues):

16. Discoverya. 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, areanticipated (specify):

CM-110[Rev.July1.2011] CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ~ Paseaots

CM-110PLAINTIFFlPETITIONER: - Cnse NunaeR:

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:

17. Economic litigationa. ~ 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.

b. 0 This is a limited civil case and a motion to withdraw the case from the economic litigation procedures or for additionaldiscovery will be filed (if checked, explain specifically why economic litigation procedures relating to discovery or trialshould not apply to this case):

18. Other issues0 The party or parties request that the following additional matters be considered or determined at the case management

conference (specify):

19. Meet and confera. 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 ofthe 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)

0 Additional signatures are attached.

CM-1~0 Rev. July 1, 2017] CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 9Pa e5o(5

The Early Se

ttle

ment

Pro

gram

:

to

,~~()

a+t

y1,

Y.~ p~(f~

1111

rJ ~`~.

C~

~,.~

:.$~

~ C 11;(~176e.~ ~C

Gj~ SIG ~, "`C1 1

"~.'~ (C

9~i

:~.e

' ,.

a~..

y

.:.

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

:5.:, ,;

~.,

~~y~

r~y

( .a~~1..

~,(~

(~o~

~,~

~Yt7'

,iy

Y: g;.;w~~

"iY,~~;~x.:

_cT

~r,~~%'

~.~" -x:

:,xv'~`f

..

w

y~,

yr

-.:.

...

awi~

~...~F:1

~. \

v

. r. ''

.

.....

... -

~~~ ~ ~ ~

2~, ~

Do you hav

e a case fi

led in San

Francisco Su

peri

or Cou

rt and want

to's

ettl

e sooner.#han your trial dat

e?-'..~

~,

syy

{

w~,.

Early S

ettl

emen

t pr

ovid

es:

,~~

_,__ic

e ..

~"~-~' `c,

,_

_-.

s.~:~

v:;

_

-,

__.,.

.~"LE

.~.~

1 yi

r ~,~'~`

~RX

~.-~

~

`~^F~~~...-i

r3i

ePf;~~i~~

~

t..

,M.

' ~~~3

q c Frr

+i~:

;~Q

b~~'A

n~

,.Y6

~i~

r 1

~}.;f

~

~;,

~-: `

~,~-~

3

i,.

y,..

.a

-

~

~r~~

~x

~`

~~

y ~ 6 r f 1 ~

l

,;"~

Z ~V

!

_

-

-.~

f~ ~

~ ~=

i t

...

~

-

_

"-

r{~._

_

_.

.

.~..

,..

S'

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

~~";

:;r

.~q

I {

Lear

n more abo

ut th

e Early Se

ttle

ment

Pro

gram-scan

the QR

Code

or vis

it www.sfbar.org/a

dr/e

sp-~,,

~ ~

rYo

rr.,,

F ~

~u,

i ti ~

,

a~

r ~

~

~ ' ..

' r~~

~~}

. ~' ryx~ -`~-~

i..4

..

'~ k

~

_ ,. _.

~

.< ",'h ''i-

7~`k

~',~

,ii?

#s~'

.b

,'v.

'I~A

kr .~~r~~E %

I'-~

~;dN

~~ .h

':V

";~

.. .3~

a?'"

" ^'.~,.~~r~

'`a srs

" :f

it.

y5v'~~,

n~'."'

r~

~`

~.. ~~;:.

~',Y.

Vii.

~Y.3 '~: ~i,

~G,~

k ;~

,~:~.

5, r~

l.'~

~~,~

~#,

~F

'.-ryf

'a^

The Ba

r Association of San

Fran

cisc

o's

Earl

y Se

ffle

ment

Program (E

SP)

is av

aila

ble as one of S

an Fra

ncis

coSu

peri

or Cou

rt's

Alternative Dis

pute

Reso

luti

on (A

DR) programs (L

ocal

Rul

e4.3).

ESP

is a hig

hly successful ADR

prog

ram

that

handles cas

es in

are

asof law

suc

h as business, pe

rson

alinjur

y, empl

oyme

nt, l

abor

, civi

l rights,

disc

rimi

nati

on, i

nsurance, ma

lpra

ctic

e,landlord/t

enan

t, an

d many others.

ESP

is uniq

ue in

tha

t the pan

elis

ts,

in he

lpin

g yo

u move tow

ard

sett

leme

nt,

can pro

vide

you

con

fide

ntia

l feedback

about th

eir e

valu

atio

n of

your ca

se,

incl

udin

g opinions as to potential

case value.

For more in

formation as wel

l as the

compl

ete Policies &Pr

oced

ures

, go