sisam g, watje, p.a. office of - minnesota · it was the practice and policy of twin cities...

Sisam G, Watje, P.A. a professional association of lawyers

7230 METRO BOULEVARD

1~ MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55439-2128 (952) 920-8877 Phone (952) 646-9977 Fax

(888) 906-4636 Toll Free email [email protected]

OFFICE OF APPELLATE COURTS

JAN 2 4 2001

Gregg E. Isaa

Jsunuary 24,200l Tammy P. Friederichs

of counsel

Rilchard S. Slowes Court Commissioner The Supreme Court of Minnesota Mmnesota Judicial Center 25 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155

Re: In re Twin Cities Harley-Davidson Litigation Case No.: Cl-01-118

De’ar Mr. Slowes:

As per your request in your January lgth letter, please find enclosed for filing a copy of the following:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. JeffBerg [Dakota County File No. 19-C6-00-92171; Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Brad Bruggentheis [Anoka County File No. C6-00-77281; Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Rocklyn Bullis [Dakota County File No. 19-C4-00-92161; Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Robert Byrnes [Hennepin County File No. CT 00-O 142681; Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Robert Cady [Rice County File No. C2-00-15391; Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Terrance John Carter [Dakota County File No. 19-CX-00-96 111; Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. David Denzer [Anoka County File No. C4-00-77271; Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Dave and Tracy Gough [Hennepin County File No. CT 00-O 126471, Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Je@ey Jungwirth [Hennepin County File No. CT 00-O 126481; Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Timothy Junkert [Anoka County File No. C9-00-82881;

L *-

Mr. Slowes January 24,200l Page two

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. James Kinney [Hennepin County File No. CT 00-0126491; Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Connie Kohrt [Hennepin County File No. CT 00-O 130321; Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Mark Lindstrom [Hennepin County File No. CT 00-0126501; Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Crysone Lindwall [Hennepin County File No. CT 00-O 1265 11; Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Alan Lucken [Scott County File No. 2000-l 85721; Amended Summons and Amended Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Daniel Lund [Anoka County File No. Cl-00-83961; Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Anne Marie Mascia [Anoka County File No. C3-00-82401; Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Steve Rose [Anoka County File No. C6-00-773 11; Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Dave Schodde [Hennepin County File No. CT 00-013090]; Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Mark Sutherland [Hennepin County File No. CT 00-013090]; Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Lawrence White [Nobles County File No. CO-00-6681; and Summons and Complaint - Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Terre11 Williams [Hennepin County File No. CT 00-0126541. -

Neither us, nor Hennepin County District Court has a copy of the Summons and Complaint in Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. John Thorman [Hennepin County File No. CT 00-012653 I have asked Mr. Lafeber to forward a copy to you directly.

I*

You also requested an affidavit of service. However, we filed the original Affidavit of Service with our motion papers on January 17,200l. Therefore, we do not have the original. *However, we have our copy. In response to your request, please find enclosed a copy of the Affidavit of Service for service of our motion papers upon Michael Lafeber, counsel for Twin Cities Harley- Davidson, Inc.

Yours truly,

P. FRIEDERICHS

TPF:amf Enclosures cc: Michael Lafeber, Esq. (w/o enclosures)


JAN 2 e, 2001 CASE TYPE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

STATE OF MINNESOTA FILED DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.,

Plaintiff, SUMMONS ’

VS.

Jeff Berg, Court File No.

Defendant.

THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT:

You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon plaintiffs attorneys an answer to the

Complaint which is herewith served upon you, within twenty (20) days after service of this Summons upon

you, exclusive of the date of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for

the rel&f demanded in the Complaint.

This case may be subject to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes under Rule 114 ofthe

General Rules of Practice for the District Courts. The Court Administrator or your attorney can provide you

with information about ADR options and a list of neutrals available in your area. ADR does not affect your

oblligation to respond to the Summons and Complaint within twenty (20) days.

RIDER, BENNETT, EGAN & ARUNDEL, LLP

)$kthq%k BY . Michael W. Unger (131&6) i

Attorneys for Plaintiff 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000

DATED: $ s 2~ ,200o Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (6 12) 340-8953

561461-I

?

CASE TYPE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

CWNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL -DISTRICT


Plaintiff,

I

COMPLAINT

vs. Court File No.

Jeff Berg,

Defendant.

Plaintiff for its cause of action, states and alleges as follows:

1. Plaintiff is a Minnesota corporation in the business of sales and services of

motorcycles with retail locations in Lakeville and Blaine, Minnesota.

2. Jeff Berg is a resident of Dakota County and was a customer of Plaintiff Twin Cities

Harley-Davidson, Inc.

3. Defendant placed a refundable, noninterest-bearing deposit with Plaintiff in order to

go on a waiting list to purchase a new Harley-Davidson motorcycle.

4. At the time of placing this deposit, Defendant specified the model type desired to be

purchased at some unspecified time in the future.

5. It was the practice and policy of Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. to sell

motorcycles to customers on the waiting list at a price it set each year based upon its perception of

the retail market. Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.‘s retail price was independent from the

.

manufacturer’s suggested retail price. At no time did Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. ever

commit or promise to sell its motorcycles based upon the manufacturer’s suggested retail price.

6. Defendant alleges that Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc., in taking the Defendant’s

waiting list deposit, promised through a salesman to offer the motorcycle at the manufacturer’s

suggested retail price. Defendant claims to be entitled to receive the difference between theactual

ret:ail price offered by Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. and the manufacturer’s suggested retail

price.

7. When Defendant’s name came up on the waiting list, the model specified by him was

no longer of interest to him. At his request, Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. transferred his

deposition to allow him to purchase a different model motorcycle.

8. Defendant is threatening to sue Plaintiff to recover an amount, less than $3,000,

which he alleges represents the difference between the manufacturer’s suggested retail price and the

actual retail price offered by Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. Defendant, through an attorney, is

threatening to also seek recovery of attorneys’ fees in an amount in excess of Defendant’s alleged

damages.

9. There being an adversity of interests between the parties and ajusticiable controversy

arising from this dispute, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant relief by declaring the rights of the

parties pursuant to the Minnesota Declaratory Judgment Act, Mimi. Stat. $ 55.01 et seq.

WHEREFORE, Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. prays for a declaration and judgment

against Defendant as follows:

2

,- ’ .

1. That Defendant has no valid claim against Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. for

damages related to making a deposit to get on a waiting list to purchase a motorcycle from Twin

Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.;

2. That any such claim, if brought, shall be dismissed with prejudice;

3. Plaintiff shall have its costs and disbursements herein; and - ,

4. For such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.


By m&h.++, Michael W. Unger (131414


DATED: i? - 2 2, ,200O Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 340-8953

561009-I

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The party upon whose behalf this pleading is submitted, by and through the undersigned, hereby acknowledges that sanctions may be imposed for a violation of Minn. Stat. $ 549.211.

.

. .,


JAN 2 4 ~~01 CASE TYPE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT


COUNTY OF ANOKA TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT



vs.

Brad Bruggentheis, Court File No.

Defendant.





the relief demanded in the Complaint.

This case may be subject to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes under Rule 114 of the



obligation to respond to the Summons and Complaint within twenty (20) days.


.

BY Michael W. U&&$131416)

Attorneys for Plaintiff 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000 Minneapolis, Minnesota $5402 (612) 340-8953 DATED: & ’ - 255 ) 2000

561498-l

CASE TYPE: DECLAIWTORY JUDGMENT


COUNTY OFANOKA - TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT


Plaintiff, COMPLAINT

,

vs. -

Brad Bruggentheis, Court File No.

Defendant.

Plaintiff, for its cause of action, states and alleges as follows:



.

2. Brad Bruggentheis is a resident of Anoka County and was a customer of Plaintiff

Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.




purchased at some unspecified time in the future. Defendant also signed an invoice at the time of

deposit which clearly stated that there was no guarantee ofthe price or availability of the motorcycle.








suggested retail price. Defendant claims to be entitled to receive the difference between the actual

retail price offered by Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. and the manufacturer’s suggested retail

price.





damages.

8. There being an adversity ofinterests between the parties and ajusticiable controversy


parties pursuant to the Minnesota Declaratory Judgment Act, Mimi. Stat. 9 55.01 et seq.



1. That Defendant has no valid claim against Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. for .



2.

3.

That any such claim, if brought, shall be dismissed with prejudice;

Plaintiff shall have its costs and disbursements herein; and

2

BY +44- <

Michael W. Unge& 3 l%%) Attorneys for Plaintiff

’ 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000

DATED: 8 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

- 2 2. ,200O (612) 340-8953

558895-i 3

. I

I


RIDER, BENNETT, EGAN & ANJNDEL, LLP

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The party upon whose behalf this pleading is submitted, by and through the undersigned, hereby acknowledges that sanctions may be imposed for a violation of Minn. Stat. 5 549.2 11.

. 1. . .

OFFICE OF

APPELLATE ‘OuRTs CASE TYPE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

STATE OF MINNESOTA JAN 2 4 2flo1 DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF DAKOTA FlL FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT



vs.

Rocklyn Bullis, Court File No.

Defendant.



Complaint which is herewith served upon you, within twenty (20) days after service of this Summons upon ,








Michael W. UngeH131416) Attorneys for Plaintiff 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000

DATED: s Aa-- Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

,200o (612) 340-8953

561505-I

-.






,

vs.

Rocklyn Bullis, Court File No.

Defendant.




2. Rocklyn Bullis is a resident of Dakota County and was a customer of Plaintiff Twin

Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.







the retail market. Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.‘s retail price was independent Ii-om the







price.





damages.

8. At the time that Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. offered to sell a motorcycle to

Defendant, Defendant raised his claim that a promise had been made to sell the motorcycle at the

manufacturer’s suggested retail price. Plaintiff and Defendant thereafter negotiated terms of a sale

of a motorcycle on a compromise basis in which the parties reached an accord and satisfaction of

Defendant’s purported claim.



parties pursuant to the Minnesota Declaratory Judgment Act, Mimi. Stat. § 55.01 et seq.



-.


damages related to ma&ing a deposit to get on a waiting list to purchase a motorcycle from Twin



3. Plaintiff shall have its costs and disbursements herein; and I


RIDER, BENNETT, EGAN & APUNDEL, LLP

c

DATED:

BY /6tq&L/h .

Michael W. Unger (131416) Attorneys for Plaintiff 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000

f Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

-22, ,200o (612) 340-8953

561527-I

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The party upon whose behalf this pleading is submitted, by and through the undersigned, hereby acknowledges that sanctions may be imposed for a violation of Minn. Stat. $549.2 11.


CASE TYPE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT JAN 2 4 2001


COUNTY OF HEN-NEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT



vs.

Robert Byrnes, Court File No.

Defendant.



Complaint which is herewith served upon you, within twenty (20) days after service.of this Summons upon








BY tip4 Jf-Y/&- / Michael W. Unger (l-6)

DATED: 6 * 2-z ,200o

561504-I

Attorneys for Plaintiff 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 340-8953

. .

CASETYPE:DECLARATORYJUDGMENT

STATEOFMINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN F~~RTHJ~DI~IALDISTRICT

Twin Cities-Harley-Davidson, Inc.,

Plaintiff, I

COMPLAINT

vs. Court File No.

Robert Bymes,

Defendant.




2. Robert Bynes is a resident of Anoka County and was a customer of Plaintiff Twin






deposit which clearly stated that there was no guarantee ofthe price or availability ofthe motorcycle.










price.





damages.








parties pursuant to the Minnesota Declaratory Judgment Act, Minn. Stat. 3 55.01 et seq.







3. Plaintiff shall have its costs and disbursements herein; and ,



By mQ&&--- Michael W. Ungg(131416)


DATED: sf -Z1- Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

,200o (612) 340-8953

558858-l

. I

.- ‘.

. I

.- ‘.

f

The party upon whose behalf this pleading is submitted, by and through the undersigned, hereby acknowledgk that sanctions may be imposed for a violation of Minn. Stat. $ 549.211.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The party upon whose behalf this pleading is submitted, by and through the undersigned, hereby acknowledgk that sanctions may be imposed for a violation of Minn. Stat. $ 549.211.

.

.,

, .



STATE OF MINNESOTA JAN 2 4 2001

COUNTY OF RICE

DISTRICT COURT

THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT


Plaintiff; SUMMONS ,

vs.

Robert Cady, Court File No.

Defendant.



Cornplaint which is herewith served upon you, within twenty (20) days after service of this Summons upon








r BY p-kAA+LCJL

Michael W. Unger (131&)-

DA.TED:


% Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

-221 ,200o (6 12) 340-8953

.



COUNTY OF RICE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT


Plaintiff, COMPLAINT ’

vs.

Robert Cady, Court File No.

Defendant.



mot:orcycles with retail locations in Lakeville and Blaine, Minnesota.

2. Robert Cady is a resident of Dakota County and was a customer of Plaintiff Twin






5. It was the practice and policy of Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. to sea







suggested retail price. Defendant claims to be entitled to receive the difference between the actual ,


price.





damages.

8. There being an adversity of interests between the parties and a justiciable controversy




agamst Defendant as follows:



Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.; \


3. Plaintiff shall have its costs and disbursements herein; and

2

.

.I

i


RIDER, BENNETT, EGAN & ARUNDEL. LLP

DATED: 2 - ‘>zL ,200o

w

BY +dL&cJ let,

Michael W. Unger (13l%6) Attorneys for Plaintiff 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (6 12) 340-8953

561563-l 3


The party upon whose behalf this pleading is submitted, by and through the undersigned, The party upon whose behalf this pleading is submitted, by and through the undersigned, hereby acknowledges that sanctions may be imposed for a violation of Minn. Stat. $549.2 11. hereby acknowledges that sanctions may be imposed for a violation of Minn. Stat. $549.2 11.

Ww& Ww& Michael I&?Jnh Michael N&h

, ,

. .

.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT


-tie Michael &!Jnh

,

.


I.

JAN 2 4 i301 CASE TYPE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

STATE OF MINNESOTA FI DISTRICT COURT



Plaintiff, - SUMMONS ’

vs.

Terrance John Carter, Court File No.

Defendant.











D.ATED:

BY mdhQHL- Michael W. Unger @1416)

Attorneys for Plaintiff 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

5$ - zz-- ,200o (6 12) 340-8953

561461-I




Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc., ,


VS.

Terrance John Carter, Court File No.

Defendant.




2. Terrance John Carter is a resident of Dakota County and was a customer of Plaintiff








the retail market. Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.% retail price was independent from the







price.

7. Before Defendant’s name came up on the waiting list, the model specified by him was

no longer available from the manufacturer. At defendant’s request, Twin Cities Harley-Davidson,

Inc. agreed to apply his deposit to a waiting list for a different model motorcycle.





damages.



,parties pursuant to the Minnesota Declaratory Judgment Act, Minn. Stat. $ 55.01 et seq.



.

. l : ..

i I


damages related to making a deposit to get on a waiting list to purchase a motorcycle Tom Twin



- 3. Plaintiff shall have its costs and disbursements herein; and I



By WA+-- Michael W. Unger (131416)


DATED: g-22 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

,200o (612) 340-8953

5607 I& I

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The party upon whose behalf this pleading is submitted, by and through the undersigned, hereby acknowledges that sanctions may be imposed for a violation of Minn. Stat. $549.2 11.


CASE TYPE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT JAN 2 4 230’1


C’OUNTY GF WASHINGTON FI TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT


Plaintiff, SUMMONS ,

vs.

David Denzer, Court File No.

Defendant.



C80mplaint which is herewith served upon you, within twenty (20) days after service of this Summons upon








By j@&i$‘%x/ h pw..:. Michael W. Unger (‘eJ1416)


g2 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

DlATED: f z ,200o (612) 34043953

. . . ‘1

I /



COUNTY OF WASHINGTON TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT


Plaintiff,

,

COMPLAINT

vs.

D’avid Denzer, Court File No.

Defendant.



m.otorcycles with retail locations in Lakeville and Blaine, Minnesota.

2. David Denzer is a resident of Washington County and was a customer of Plaintiff




4. At the time ofplacing this deposit, Defendant specified the model type desired to be


deposit which clearly stated that there was no guarantee oftheprice or availability ofthe motorcycle.


.


thle retail market. Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.‘s retail price was independent Tom the




wiaiting list deposit, promised through a salesman to offer the motorcycle at the manufacturer’s

suggested retail price. Defendant claims to be entitled to receive the difference between the,actual


price.

7. When Defendant’s name came up on the waiting list, the model year offered to him

was not acceptable and so he declined to purchase and obtained a refund.





damages.



parties pursuant to the Minnesota Declaratory Judgment Act, Minn. Stat. $ 55.01 et seq. .






2

558817-I

2.

3.

4.


Plaintiff shall have its costs and disbursements herein, and

For such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.


By we%’ Michael W. Ungk$l31416)


DATED: & 2000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 340-8953

OFFICE OF

APPELLATE GouRTs CASE TYPE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

STATE OF MINNESOTA JAN 2 4 2301 DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT



vs.

Dave and Tracy Gough, Court File No.

Defendants.

?%E STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS:





This case may be subject to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes under Rule 114 of

the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts. The Court Administrator or your attorney can provide

you with information about ADR options and a list of neutrals available in your area. ADR does not affect

your obligation to respond to the Summons and Complaint within twenty (20) days.


BY

DATED: ,200o

Attorneys for Plaintiff 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (6 12) 34043953

56’1228-1

r---

STATE OF MINNESOTA

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN


DISTRICT COURT

FOiTRTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc., _

vs.

Dave and Tracy Gough,

Plaintiff, COliIPLAINT

Court File No.

Defendants.

. Plaintiff, for its cause of action, states and alleges as follows:


mlotorcycles with retail locations in Lakeville and Blaine, Minnesota.

2. Dave and Tracy Gough are residents of Hennepin County and were customers of

Plaintiff Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.

3. Defendants placed a refundable, noninterest-bearing deposit with Plaintiff in order

to go on a waiting list to purchase a new Harley-Davidson motorcycle.

4. At the time of placing this deposit, Defendants specified the model type desired to

be purchased at some unspecified time in the future.



the retail market. Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc’s retail price was independent fkom the

manufacturer’s suggested retail price. At no time did Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. ever commit

or promise to sell its motorcycles based upon the manufacturer’s suggested retail price.

6. Defendants allege that Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc., in taking the Defendants’


suggested retail price. Defendants claim to be entitled to receive the difference between the ,actual


price.

7. Defendants later decided not to get the model they requested. Instead, they requested

that this deposit be applied by Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. to a different model motorcycle.

8. Defendants are threatening to sue Plaintiff to recover an amount, less than $3,000,

which they alleges represents the difference between the manufacturer’s suggested retail price and

the actual retail price offered by Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. Defendants, through an attorney,

are threatening to also seek recovery of attorneys’ fees in an amount in excess of Defendants’ alleged

damages.

.





against Defendants as foliows:

1. That Defendants have no valid claim against Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. for



2





,

BY . Michael W. Unger (13gl6)


DATED: 2f Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

- zz-. ,200o (612) 34043953

561189 3

---

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The party upon whose behalf this pleading is submitted, by and through the undersigned, hereby acknowledges that sanctions may be imposed for a violation of Minn. Stat. $ 549.2 11.

‘,

.

OFFICE OF

APPELLATE CoURvASE TYPE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

STATE OF MINNESOTA JAN 2 4: 2801 DISTRICT COURT




VS.

Jeffrey Jungwirth, Court File No.

Defendant.










R&R, BENNETT, EGAN & ARUNDEL, LLP

c

DATED:

BY *t, e

Michael W. Unger (@1416) Attorneys for Plaintiff 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

s-zz-z- ,200o (6 12) 340-5953

561461-I


STATE OF MINNESOTA

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN

DISTRICT COURT

FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT


Plaintiff,

vs.

Jefiey Jungwirth,

, COMPLAINT

Court File No.

Defendant.


1. Plaintiff is a Minnesota corporation in the business of sales and services of .


2. Jeffrey Jungwirth is a resident of Hennepin County and was a customer of Plaintiff









p-“.





suggested retail price. Defendant claims to be entitled to receive the difference between the gctual


price.





damages.



parties pursuant to the Minnesota Declaratory Judgment Act, Minn. Stat. $ 55.01 et seq.




damages related to making a deposit. to get on a waiting list to purchase a motorcycle from Twin




2



Michael W. Unger (131416) Attorneys for Plaintiff 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000 - ’

DATED: _ g-22- Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

,200o (6 12) 340-8953 I

561005-I


The party upon whose behalf this pleading is submitted, by and through the undersigned, The party upon whose behalf this pleading is submitted, by and through the undersigned, hereby acknowledges that sanctions may be imposed for a violation of Minn. Stat. 5 549.2 11. hereby acknowledges that sanctions may be imposed for a violation of Minn. Stat. 5 549.2 11.

. .

. ” 1

OFFICE OF

APPELLATE CoURTSCASE TYPE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

STATE OF MINNESOTA JAN 2 4 2801 DISTRICT COURT



Plaintiff,

vs.

Timothy Junkert,

Defendant.

SUMMONS ,

Court File No.











DATED: d - 12, ,200o

BY d&c1 , Michael W. Unger (l’%416)

Attorneys for Plaintiff 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 340-8953

561544-l






Defendant.

Court File No. vs.

Timothy Junker-t,




2. Timothy Junker-t is a resident of Hennepin County and was a customer of Plaintiff





purchased at some unspecified time in the future,

5. It was the practice and policy of Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. to se8







suggested retail price. Defendant claims to be entitled to receive the difference between the,actual


price.

7. When Defendant’s name came up on the waiting list, he asked to apply his deposit

toward purchase of a different model.





damages.









2

2.

3.

4.





DATED:

Bywdk.+ ’ Michael W. Ung& (131416)


% - z- ,200o (612) 340-8953

558224-I

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The party upon whose behalf this pleading is submitted, by and through the undersigned, hereby acknowledges that sanctions may be imposed for a violation of Minn. Stat. $549.211.

,


JAN 2 !< 88"i CASE TYPE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT




vs.

James Kinney,

Plaintiff, SUMMONS

Court File No.

,

Defendant.

THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT*:


Complaint which is herewith served upon you, within twenty (20) days after service of this Summons

upon you, exclusive of the date of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken

against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint.

This case may be subject to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes under Rule 114

of the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts. The Court Administrator or your attorney can

provide you with information about ADR options and a list of neutrals available in your area. ADR

does not affect your obligation to respond to the Summons and Complaint within twenty (20) days.


DATED:

By &k&b*+ Michael W. Ungek$3 1416)


flw 5 t 2 &2000 (612) 340-8953

561323-l

r---

1 CASE TYPE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT I


COUNTY OF HENNEPIN - FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT


Plaintiff, -COMPLAINT ’

vs.

James Kinney, Court File No.

Defendant.



motorcycles with retail locations in Lakeville and Blame, Minnesota.

2. James Kinney is a resident of Hennepin County and was a customer of Plaintiff Twin








the retail market. Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Ix’s retail price was independent from the

manufactureis suggested retail price. At no time did Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. ever commit






price. ,

7. After making his deposit, Defendant changed his interest in models and requested to

transfer his deposit for purchase of a different model.


which it alleges represents the difference between the manufacturer’s suggested retail price and the



damages.







damages related to making a deposit to get on a waiting list to purchase a motorcycle Erom Twin




2



BY /@+4Jb*L Michael W. U&e&131416)

Attorneys for Plaintiff - 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000

I

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 DATED- . fl”: v>k 22 ,200O (612) 340-8953

561315

.

_ ACKNOWLEDGMENT


-wcq Michael V&!JnA

,

OFFICE OF APPELLATE COURTS CASE TYPE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

STATE OF MINNESOTA JAN 2 i”L 2201 DISTRICT COURT



Plaintiff,

vs.

Connie Kohrt,

Defendant.

SUMMONS . ,

Court File No.











BY s&Jti Michael W. Unger (13 M 16)


DATED: k-22 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

,200o (6 12) 340-8953

i






vs. Court File No.

Connie Kohrt,

Defendant.




2. Connie Kohrt is a resident of Hennepin County and was a customer of Plaintiff Twin


3. Defendant placed a refUndable, noninterest-bearing deposit with Plaintiff in order to






the retail market. Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc’s retail price was independent fkom the

\





suggested retail price. Defendant claims to be entitled to receive the difference between the actual I


price.


which she alleges represents the difference between the manufacturer’s suggested retail price and the



damages.



parties pursuant to the Minnesota Declaratory Judgment Act, l%m. Stat. $ 55.01 et seq.



1. That Defendant has no valid claim against Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. for .

damages related to making a deposit to get on a waiting list to purchase a motorcycle f?om Twin




2



By w&e/, Michael W. Unger m

Attorneys for Plaintiff

DATED: 4 - 23 ,200O

333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 340-8953

561555-l 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENT


-we Michael en-

,



STATE OF MINNESOTA JAN 2 p, 2;101

DISTRICT COURT



Plaintiff, SUMMONS I

vs.

Mark Lindstrom, Court File No.

Defendant.











DATED:

By u-=J& Michael W. Unger (1391416)


l-2 l ‘z z. ,200o (6 12) 340-8953

-





Plaintiff, COMPLAINT ’ -

vs.

Mark Lindstrom, Court File No.

Defendant.

PlaintiE, for its cause of action, states and alleges as follows:



2. Mark Lindstrom is a resident of Hennepin County and was a customer of Plaintiff














suggested retail price. Defendant claims to be entitled to receive the difference between the actual ,


price.

7. After making his deposit, Defendant repeatedly cancelled his waiting list place and

asked to transfer his deposit to a list for a different model. Each time he signed disclaimers of no

price guarantee.





damages.


arising fi-om this dispute, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant relief by declaring the rights of the

parties pursuant to the Minnesota Declaratory Judgment Act, Minn. Stat. $55.01 et seq. *




! damages related to making a deposit to get on a waiting list to purchase a motorcycle from Twin

i _ Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.;


3.

4.


For such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. I


By hb*c/ Michael W. Unger (131416)y


DATED: g-z=- ,200o Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 340-8953

561245 3

. . /’ 1

:’

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The party upon whose behalf this pleading is submitted, by and through the undersigned, hereby acknowledges that sanctions may be imposed for a violation of Minn. Stat. 6 549.211.

-wcI Michael %6!JnA

I


J A!,1 2 4 2 i3il1 CASE TYPE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

STATE OF MINNESOTA

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN

DISTRICT COURT




vs.

Crysone Lindwall, Court File No.

Defendant.

THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT










By ~~~-~ Michael W. Unger &1416)


DATED: 8--z Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

,200o (612) 34043953

561473-I





Plaintiff, ,

COMPLAINT

vs.

Crysone Lindwall,

Defendant.

Court File No.




2. Crysone Lindwall is a resident of Hennepin County and was a customer of Plaintiff






deposit which clearly stated that there was no guarantee of the price or availability of the motorcycle.

5. It was the practice and policy of Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. to se14



~I I ., .

/





suggested-retail price. Defendant claims to be entitled to receive the difference between the actual


price.

7. When Defendant’s name came up on the waiting list, (s)he sought to have it sold to

another. Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. offered to sell a different model motorcycle to

Defendant at their own retail price.


which (s)he alleges represents the difference between the manufacturer’s suggested retail price and

the actual retail price offered by Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. Defendant, through an attorney,

is threatening to also seek recovery of attorneys’ fees in an amount in excess of Defendant’s alleged

damages.


Defendant, Defendant raised his/her claim that a promise had been made to sell the motorcycle at

the manufacturer’s suggested retail price. Plaintiff and Defendant thereafter negotiated terms ofa

sale of a motorcycle on a compromise basis in which the parties reached an accord and satisfaction

of Defendant’s purported claim.

There being an adversity of interests between the parties and ajusticiable controversy




against Defendant as follows: ,








BY pk&-&h-*

Michael W. Unger (171416) Attorneys for Plaintiff 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000

DATED: k-22- Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

,200o (612) 34043953

558886-l 3 _

i i

ACKNOWLEDGMENT




STATE OF MINNESOTA JAN 2 $ 2801

DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF SCOTT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT


vs.

Plaintiff, SUMMONS I

Alan Lucken, Court File No.

Defendant.

I THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT:

You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon plaintiEs attorneys an answer to the









By wdk %7,/.

Michael W. Unger (@1416) Attorneys for Plaintiff 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000

DATED: sl Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

- L7- ,200o (6 12) 340-5953

561534-l

J ‘I I

I



COUNTY OF SCOTT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT



I

vs.

Alan Lucken, Court File No.

Defendant.




2. Alan Lucken is a resident of Scott County and was a customer OfPlaintiffTwin Cities









1 I I

‘I *

i



6. Defendant alleges that Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc., in taking the Defendant‘s




price.

7. When Defendant name came up on the waiting list, Defendant requested a different

model and asked Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. to apply his deposit to a different model

motorcycle.





damages.

9. Defendant is a member‘of a class whose claims were settled according to the terms

of a settlement approved by the Dakota County District Court. Defendants claim, if any, was

dismissed and released by order of Dakota County District Court.




2

-

J J

. L

I .





Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.; ,




RIDER, BENNETT, EGAN & ARUN-DEL, LLP

DATED:

BY )$%%dAlh*

Michael W. Unger (131416) Attorneys for Plaintiff 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

$-z-z- ,200o (612) 34043953

561543-l

. 3 A- c . .

(

ACKNOWLEDGMENT


,

l , *

.) OFFICE OF APPELLATE COURTS

JAN 2 4 2001 CASE TYPE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT



Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc., AMENDED

Plaintiff, SUMMONS

vs.

Daniel Lund, Court File No.

Defendant.








you with information about ADR options and a list of neutrals available in your area. ADR does not affect



DATED:

BY Michael W. Unger (131416)

Attorneys for Plaintiff 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 5 l 3 )’ ,200o (612) 340-8953

561490-l




Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc., .

Plaintiff, AMENDED~~~IHAINT ,

vs. Court File No.

Daniel Lund,

Defendant.




2. Daniel Lund is a resident of Anoka County and was a customer of Plaintiff Twin





purchased at some unspecified time in the Wure. Defendant also signed an invoice at the time of

deposit which clearly stated that there was no guarantee of the price or availability of the motorcy&.









retail price offered by Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. and the manufacturer’s suggested detail

price.





damages.






9. Defendant is a member of a class whose claims were settled according to the terms

of a settlement approved by the Dakota County District Court. Defendant’s claim, if any, was

dismissed and released by order of Dakota County District Court,




2





Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.; .

2. That any such claim, if brought, shall be dismissed with prejudice; ’




DATED:

BY Michael W. Unger (131416)


# ZI ,200o (612) 340-8953

ACKNOWLEDGMENT


Michael W. Unger

558872-l


.

.JAN 2 4 ?ClOl CASE TYPE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT




Plaintiff, SUMMONS .

vs.

Anne Marie Mascia, Court File No.

Defendant.








you with information about ADR options and a list of neutrals available in your area ADR does not affect


RIDER BENNETT, EGAN & ARUNDEL, LLP

BY

/ .’

9 /3,c@ DATED: ,

. Michael M. Lafeber (242871) Attorneys for Plaintiff 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 340-8953/7992

576887-l

.

I . . 1





Plaintiff, COMPLAINT - ’

vs.

Anne Marie Mascia, Court File No.

Defendant.




2. Anne Marie Mascia is a resident of the State of Wisconsin, County of Burnett.

Defendant was a resident of the State of Minnesota in 1993 and was a customer of Plaintiff Twin


3. Defendant placed a refundable, noninterest-bearing deposit at Plair&‘s Blame

location in the County of Anoka in order to go on a waiting list to purchase a new Harley-Davidson

motorcycle.



5. It was the practice and policy of Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. to seH


( -’ 1

I


manufacturer’s suggested retail price. At no time did Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. ever commit



waiting list deposit, promised through a salesman to offer the motorcycle at the manufacturer’s ,

suggested retail price. Defendant claims to be entitled to receive the diierence between the actual


price.

. 7. Defendant is threatening to sue Plaintiff to recover an amount, less than $3,000,




damages,



parties pursuant to the Minnesota Declaratory Judgment Act, Minn. Stat. 5 55.01 ef seq.





Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.; *


2




i MFhae\ W. Unger (131416) l

i Mikhael M. Lafeber (242871) Attorneys for Plaintiff

I

DATED: 9,/3 ,200o

333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (6 12) 340-8953/7992

561563-l

b -.


JAN 2 4 :a01 CASE TYPE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT




Plaintiff, SUMMONS ’ -

vs. Court File No.

Steve Rose,

Defendant.











BY @&--I&(,_ Michael W. Unger t&416)


8 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

DATED: c z- 2 ,200o (6 12) 34043953

561386-l






,

vs.

Steve Rose, Court File No.

Defendant.




2. Steve Rose is a resident ofAnoka County and was a customer ofPlaintiffTwin Cities









the retail market. Twin Cities HarleFDavidson, Inc.‘s retail price was independent from the





suggested retail price. Defendant claims to be entitled to receive the difference between theactual -


price.





damages.









2.

3.



2



DATED:

By W~~-Q-

Michael W. Ungern31416) Attorneys for Plaintiff

’ 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

6 - z L ,200o (612) 340-8953

558869-I 3

, . .

,’ ’ I

i

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The party upon whose behalf this pleading is submitted, by and through the undkrsigned, hereby acknowledges that sanctions may be imposed for a violation of Minn. Stat. $ 549.2 11.

,, .’

I i

i (

x l


CASE TYPE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT JAN 2 4 801




Plaintiff, - SUMMONS I

vs.

Dave Schodde, Court File No.

Defendant.


You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon plaintiff’s attorneys an answer to the








RIDER, BENNETT, EGAN g: ARUNDEL, LLP

DATED:

BY Wa-dL-t.-- Michael W. Unger (lfl416)


6- Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

2 7 ,200o (6 12) 34043953




- Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

,

COMPLAINT

vs.

Dave Schodde,

Defendant.

Court File No.




2. Dave Schodde is a resident of Hennepin County and was a customer ofplaintiff Twin


3. Defendant placed refundable, noninterest-bearing deposits with Plaintiff in order to

go on waiting lists to purchase a new Harley-Davidson motorcycle.

4. At the time of placing the deposits, Defendant specified the model type desired to be

purchased at some unspecified time in the future. Defendant received an invoice at the time of

deposits which often reflected no guarantee of the price or availability of the motorcycle.



the retail market. Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.? retail price was independent from the

i :




waiting list deposits, promised through a salesman to offer the motorcycle at the manufacturer’s



price.





damages.

8. Defendant previously brought a claim in conciliation court in which he alleged a

similar claim. His claim was dismissed and any further claim is barred by the doctrine of res

judicata.



parties pursuant to the Minnesota Declaratory Judgment Act, Minn. Stat. § 55.01 et seq.



1. 1. That Defendant has no valid claim against Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. for That Defendant has no valid claim against Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. for

damages related to making a deposit to get on a waiting list to purchase a motorcycle from Twin damages related to making a deposit to get on a waiting list to purchase a motorcycle from Twin

Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.; Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.;

2. 2. That any such claim, if brought, shall be dismissed with prejudice; That any such claim, if brought, shall be dismissed with prejudice;

3. 3. Plaintiff shall have its costs and disbursements herein; and Plaintiff shall have its costs and disbursements herein; and - - , ,

4. 4. For such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. For such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

RIDER, BENNETT, EGAN & ARUNDEL, LLP RIDER, BENNETT, EGAN & ARUNDEL, LLP

By wdk %w By wdk %w Michael W. Unger (1%416) Michael W. Unger (1%416)

Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Plaintiff 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000

DATED: DATED: A 2000 A 2000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 340-8953 (612) 340-8953

* \’ ! i

ACKNOWLEDGMENT


.


JAN 2 4 2ix.H STATE OF MINNESOTA

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN


DISTRICT COURT



Plaintiff, SUMMONS ’ -

vs.

Mark Sutherland, Court File No.

Defendant.











DATED:

By wk/&&?‘+- Michael W. Unger (H1416)


6 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

-27 ,200o (6 12) 34043953

56 1473-I

.‘. CASE TYPE: DECLAIUTORY JUDGMENT


COUNTY OF HENNEPIN‘ FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT



,

vs.

Mark Sutherland, Court File No.

Defendant.




2. Mark Sutherland is a resident of Hennepin County and was a customer of Plaintiff


3. Defendantplaced a refundable, noninterest-bearing deposit with Plaintiff in order to




deposit which clearly stated that there was no guarantee ofthe price or availability ofthe motorcycle.


mlotorcycles to customers on the waiting list at a price it set each year based upon its perception of

the retail market. Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.5 retail price was independent from the







price.





damages.



parties pursuant to the Minnesota Declaratory Judgment Act, Mix-m. Stat. 5 55.01 et seq.








2

4. 4. For such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. For such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

RIDER, BENNETT, EGAN & ARUNDEL, LLP RIDER, BENNETT, EGAN & ARUNDEL, LLP

DATED: DATED:

BY BY &zdh.~ &zdh.~ Michael W. Unger fi31416) Michael W. Unger fi31416)

Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Plaintiff ’ ’ 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 9p Lb 9p Lb ,200o ,200o (612) 340-8953 (612) 340-8953

558915-I


The party upon whose behalf this pleading is submitted, by and through the undersigned, The party upon whose behalf this pleading is submitted, by and through the undersigned, hereby acknowledges that sanctions may be imposed for a violation of Minn. Stat. 9 549.2 11. hereby acknowledges that sanctions may be imposed for a violation of Minn. Stat. 9 549.2 11.

. .

.,

’ I ’ I



ST.ATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF NOBLES EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT



vs.

Lawrence White, Court File No.

Defendant.



Colmplaint which is herewith served upon you, within twenty (20) days after service of this Summons upon








BY pJzo*~ Michael W. Unger @14*


DATED: g- 1% Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

,200o (6 12) 34043953

561455-l



COUNTY OF NOBLES ’ EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT



,

vs.

Lawrence White, Court File No.

Defendant.




2. Lawrence White is a resident ofNobles County and was a customer ofplaintiff Twin

Cilties Harley-Davidson, Inc.








.



6.. Defendant alleges that Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc., in taking the Defendant’s




price.


whkich he alleges represents the difference between the manufacturer’s suggested retail price and the



damages.











2



DATED:

By ti*‘+ Michael W. Unger (131416)

Attorneys for Plaintiff ’ 333 South Sevknth Street, Suite 2000

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 k -z’;I’, ,200o (612) 340-8953

560648-I 3

_, ACKNOWLEDGMENT



JAN 2 d :a01 CASE TYPE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT


CO’UNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Twi.n Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.,


vs.

Terre11 Williams, Court File No.

Defendant.











DATED: 84-t ,200o

SBl485-1

Michael W. Ungerv31416) Attorneys for Plaintiff 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 340-8953

, -.

I’ ‘..



COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT - -

Twin Cities Harley-Dayidson, Inc., ‘I


VS.

Court File No. Terre11 Williams,

Defendant.

-




2. Terre11 Williams is a resident of Hennepin County and was a customer of Plaintiff






deiposit which clearly stated that there was no guarantee ofthe price or availability ofthe motorcycle.

5. It was the practice and policy of Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc. to seH


the retail market. Twin Cities Harley-Davidson, Inc.?, retail price was independent from the

i







price.





damages.





ag:ainst Defendant as follows:






2

. . . / :



DATED: $2 - z ,200o

558882-l

By -b*+--

Michael W. Unger (131416) Attorneys for Plaintiff , 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 340-8953

3

ACKNOWLEDGMENT


sisam g, watje, p.a. office of - minnesota · it was the practice and policy of twin cities...

Documents