Ferrari -want to be owner-Class action suit?

Haven't heard about it, but as a lawyer, I'd say it will be a difficult case to win.

CW

 

You can look up many current cases on PACER, at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov . There you can see documents filed with the court and all of the motion, judicial paperwork, etc.

 

what are they going to sue Ferrari to make more cars ?

Just supply and demand.

 

"It seems that an attorney (NE are he said) wanted to buy a new car and was p---ed off that he would have to jump thru all the hoops"


A truly sad, sad w+nker.

 

"The greed of the evil capitalist Ferrari dealer has damaged me. I demand one billion dollars. Tomorrow would be fine. Thank you. (PS...It isn't about the money, it's so no one else will ever have to suffer the way I have.)"

Jack

 

I took a quick look and didn't see that lawsuit, but among the open ones I found this one filed in September - a family in Georgia is suing for $89 Million over their daughter's death allegedly due to the movie The Fast and The Furious. Ferrari NA and Ferrari SpA are individual codefendants.

Plaintiff, A JURY TRIAL BY TWEL . ~~ PERSONS IS DEMANDED , „ Universal Pictures Distribution Acura Division of American Honda Motor Co., Inc. SIN THE UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT COURT U,S•a c FOR THE NORTHERNDISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTADIVISION SEP O ~ "DES non,c. re~

CORA WI1vNIE(WEBB)BLEVINS %* V. Derrick Anthony Williams Spalding County, Georgia Georgia Department of Transportation Vivendi Universal Entertainment Universal Studios Operations Group Universal Pictures/Studios Civil ActionNo. -M2091 Doug Claybourne, Executive Producer-"The Fast and The Furious", 2001 Neal H. Moritz, Producer-"The Fast and The Furious", 2001 Rob Cohen, Director-"The Fast and The Furious", 2001 American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Honda Motor Co., LTD

Dodge-Daimler Chrysler Mazda Motor of America, Inc. Mazda Toyota Motor North America, Inc. Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC) Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) Nissan North America, Inc. Nissan Motor Co., LTD Ferrari North America, Inc. Ferrari Motor S.p.a. Volkswagen of America, Inc. Volkswagen AG. Germany

victim's/Plaintiff's only daughter; and COMPLAINT SEEKINGRECOVERY FOR LOSSOF SOCIETY, COMPANY, CONSORTIUM, AFFECTION, COMPANIONSHIPANDASSISTANCEOF CHILD DUE TO PERSONALINJURYDEATHCAUSED BY TORTUOUS NEGLIGENCEOF FAILURETO PERFORM DUTY AND OBLIGATION TOPROTECT ANOTHERAGAINST UNREASONABLERISKOF INJURY OR DEATH BY NAMED DEFENDANTS Comes Now, Cora Winnie (Webb) Blevins, Plaintiff in the above styled action, and states her complaint as follows:

INTRODUCTION 1. When someone acts in a careless (defined as taking insufficient care; negligent; marked by or resulting from lack of forethought or thoroughness; showing a lack of consideration; unconcerned or indifferent)and/or wanton(defined as being without check or limitation)way and causes injury to another person, under the legal principle of "negligence" the careless/wanton person(s) will be legally liable for any resulting harm according to O.C.G.A section 51-1. Specifically, Plaintiff will show that the Defendant(s): -Owed a legal duty of care to the victim/Plaintiff under the circumstances; -Failed to fulfill ("breached") that legal duty through conduct or action (including a failure to act); -Caused or contributed to the accidental injury that caused the death of the -Harmed or injured the Plaintiff as a result (including but not limited to loss of consortium).

JURISDICTION 2. This court has jurisdiction as this is a diversity action brought in this district on the basis of the federal court's exercise of authority over cases involving parties from different states and an amount in controversy greater than $75,000(28 U.S.C. Section 1332).

VENUE 3. Venue in this district is the proper place for the trial of this suit as this is the judicial district of the Plaintiff's residence and where the claim arose (28US. C. Section 1391).

PARTIES 4. The Plaintiff 4.1 Cora Winnie (Webb) Blevins(Blevins) 4.1.1 Blevins is a resident of Cobb County, Georgia and the natural/birth mother of Terri Lynn Webb. 5. The Defendants 5.1 DerrickAnthonyWilliams (Williams) 5.1.1 Williams resides at 91 Pursur Circle, Williamson, GA 30202 and was the driver of the car involved in the accident.

....

5.23 FerrariNorthAmerica,Inc. (Ferrari America) 5.23.1 Ferrari America is located in Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 and is the manufacturer and distributor of the Ferrari model(s) used in the film "The Fast and The Furious" in 2001.
5.24 Ferrari Motor S.p.A (Ferrari) 5.24. 1 Ferrari is located in Via Emilia, 1040 41100 Modena and is the manufacturer and distributor of the Ferrari model(s) used in the film "The Fast and The Furious"in 2001.
...

FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTIONS 6. Terri Lynn Webb (victim-Plaintiff s only daughter and best friend) was a passenger in a 1999 Honda Civic driven by Williams. At 23:33 hours on August 31, 2002, Williams, driving at an extremely high rate of speed (estimated at over 90 mph), lost control of his vehicle. The vehicle left the roadway, went airborne, struck a tree and split in half. 6.1 There were two fatality victims at the scene (Patricia Coffee, 275 Wani Road, Griffin, GA 30223 and David "Scotti" Bunn, 82 Hill Crest Avenue, Griffin, GA 30223) that were taken to the GBI crime lab. There were two injury victims (Larry Williams, 89 Pursur Circle, Williamson, GA 30292 and Terri Lynn Webb, 2910 Stonecreek Road, Smyrna, GA 30080) that were life-flighted to Atlanta Medical Center and Grady Memorial Hospital respectively. Terri Lynn Webb died at 07:24 hours at Grady Memorial Hospital on September 1, 2002, just one month before her 19"k' birthday. Plaintiff received the call from the Georgia State Patrol at approximately 4:00 a.m. on September 1, 2002, that her only daughter had been lifeflighted to Grady Memorial Hospital.

6.2 Plaintiff believes that Williams was influenced by the film "The Fast and The Furious" 2001, into believing that it was safe for cars to be driven at high rates of speed and to make similar maneuvers as were displayed in the film. As the driver of the car at the time of the accident, he had the control and legal duty of care to the victim under the circumstances. He failed to fulfill that legal duty through his conduct and thus caused or contributed to the accidental injury which resulted in the death of the Plaintiffs only daughter, which in turn caused harm to the Plaintiff as a result.

6.3 (Side note: Plaintiff believes that based on several critics' reviews of the film, Cohen (Director), intentionally edited scenes from the film in order to get a PG- 13rating as opposed to the original R-rating. By taking these steps Cohen intentionally made this film more readily available to an inappropriate and impressionable audience.) This action directly contributed to the "mainstreaming" of this movie into our society.

6.4 Plaintiff believes that Cohen (Director), had a responsibility to prevent the film "The Fast and The Furious" 2001, from being produced and/or distributed . As the director of the film, he had the control and legal duty of care to the victim under the circumstances. He failed to fulfill that legal duty through his careless and wanton conduct and thus caused or contributed to an accidental injury which resulted in the death of the victim's/Plaintiff s daughter. By failing to prevent the release of "The Fast and The Furious", 2001, he failed the legal duty of care which was owed to the victim/Plaintiff, which in turn caused harm to the Plaintiff as a result.

6.5 Plaintiff believes that Claybourne (Executive Producer), had a responsibility to prevent the film "The Fast and The Furious" 2001, from being produced and/or distributed. As the executive producer of the film, he had the control and legal duty of care to the victim under the circumstances. He failed to fulfill that legal duty through his conduct and thus caused or contributed to an accidental injury which resulted in death involving the victim's/Plaintiff's daughter . 11 By failing to prevent the release of "The Fast and The Furious", 2001, he failed the legal duty of care which was owed to the victim/Plaintiff, which in turn caused harm to the Plaintiff as a result.

6.6 Plaintiff believes that Moritz (Producer), had a responsibility to prevent the film "The Fast and The Furious" 2001, from being produced and/or distributed. As the producer of the film, he had the control and legal duty of care to the victim under the circumstances. He failed to fulfill that legal duty through his conduct and thus caused or contributed to an accidental injury which resulted in death involving the victim's/Plaintiff'sdaughter. By failingto preventtherelease of "The Fastand The Furious", 2001, he failed the legal duty of care which was owed to the victim/Plaintiff, which in turn caused harm to the Plaintiff as a result .

6.7 Plaintiff believes that Vivendi Universal Entertainment (VUE) (and affiliated companies listed as defendants, USOG, UP, UPD) were acting based on profits (the film premiered on June 24, 2001, in the U.S. and by October 28, 2001 had grossed $144,512,310 inthe U.S. alone-not including cable and video profits) rather than their moral and legal obligation to the public in general and to the victim/Plaintiff specifically. By failing to prevent the release of "The Fast and The Furious" 2041, they also failed the legal duty of care which was owed to the victim/Plaintiff, which in turn caused harm to the Plaintiff as a result.

6.8 Plaintiff believes that all of the motor vehicle manufacturers and distributors listed as defendants (American Honda, Honda Motor, Acura, Daimler Chrysler, Mazda America, Mazda, Toyota America, TMC, Mitsubishi, MMC, Nissan America, Nissan, Ferrari America, Ferrari, Volkswagen America, Volkswagen), failed the legal duty of care which was owed to the victim by allowing their products to become "key characters" in the film "The Fast and The Furious" 2001, which in turn caused harm to the Plaintiff as a result. They were acting with impunity, based on profits they would make when all of the young people that saw the film wanted to purchase their vehicles. By allowing their products to be used in the film and by failing to prevent the release of "The Fast and The Furious" 2001, they also failed the legal duty of care which was owed to the victim/Plaintiff, which in turn caused harm to the Plaintiff as a result. CONCLUSION Plaintiff believes that these and similar careless and wanton conducts and actions have contributed to the carnage that we see on the local news on a weekly basis. Young people (who are not experienced drivers and who do not possess the skills needed to perform like the stunt persons in the film) being killed trying to imitate the stunts in the film by driving at a high rate of speed and attempting high-risk street racing and driving. (Side note: When the film was premiered in the UK, the police were positioned in the parking lots outside the theaters because they understood the likelihood that the young people still high from the adrenaline pumping extremes of the films would try to imitate what they had just seen in the film.) You can put all of the disclaimers on the movie/DVD that you want i.e., "don't try this at home", but young people do not have the life experience and maturity to realize the impact and life-long pain, heartbreak and suffering that a few seconds of "living your life a quarter-mile at a time" can have. Producers, directors and distributors of films such as "The Fast and The Furious" 2001, and manufacturers and distributors of motor vehicles used in films like "The Fast and The Furious" 2001, need to take a step back and re-evaluate their moral and legal duty to care and express through their conduct and actions the responsibility that they owe to the youth of our nation (and their parentswho are left to suffer and carry on without the society,company, consortium, affection, companionship and assistance of their child). Plaintiff will never see her only daughter marry and will never experience the joy of becoming a grandmother to her only daughter's children.

DAMAGES, JUDGEMENT AND RELIEF By Georgia statute, "general" damages are those which the law presumes to flow from any tortious act and may be recovered without proofofanyamount. O. C. G.A. §SI-12-2. Damages for loss of consortium are considered "general" damages, the measure of which is left to the enlightened conscience of impartial jurors. Maloy v. Dixon, 127 Ga. App. 151, 167-168, 193 S.E.2d 19 (1972); Hightower v. Landrum, 109 Ga. App. 510,136S.E.2d 425 (1964). O. C. G.A. §51-12-6states that in those cases where the injury is to the peace, happiness, or feelings of the Plaintiff, the jury is permitted to award "vindictive" damages. In such cases, the worldly circumstances of the parties can be considered. Colliesv. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 197 Ga. App. 309, 310, 398 S.E.2d 207(1990); Brunswick Gas & Fuel Co. v. Parrish, 179 Ga. App. 495, 500, 347 S.E.2d 240 (1986). "Vindictive" or punitive damages are recoverable when a defendant acts maliciously, wilfully, or with a wanton(defined as being without check or limitation)disregard of the rights of others." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Roseberry v. Brooks, 218Ga.App. 202, 209-210(4),461 S.E.2d 262 (1995).

The requested relief is further and specifically identified as follows: 1. An awardto Plaintiff of monetarygeneral damages forloss of society, company, consortium, affection, companionship and assistance of her only daughter of not less than $89,271,475 (one half of the reported profits from "The Fast and The Furious", 2001), plus interest;

2. An award toPlaintiff of monetaryvindictive damages for the wanton disregard of Plaintiffs state of peace and feelings displayed by all defendants which resulted in the injury to her peace and happiness of not less than $89,271,475 (one half of the reported profits from "The Fast and The Furious", 2001), plus interest;

3. An award to Plaintiff of any and all incurred attorney fees and costs of litigation as authorized by law;

4. Set this matter for a trial before a jury;

5. The State of Georgia and/or Spalding County, Georgia be required to immediately install a guard rail along School Road in Griffin, Georgia, specifically at the curve at the .1 mile mark east of Patterson Road in Griffin, Georgia (the accident site).

6. And for any such other and further relief that this Court may find to be just and equitable.

PLAINTIFF'S PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Cora Winnie (Webb) Blevins outlines and prays that this Court hear this motion and grant Plaintiff damages, relief and judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally, unless otherwise stated or requested. She also prays that this will send a message to our society that Defendants such as these can no longer proceed with impunity and that their actions are truly with consequences . She also prays that no other parent shall suffer the same heartbreak that she has suffered.
Respectfully submitted this 1st day of September, 2006.

 

I do not initially see that as a class action suit, but I could certainly see it on Equal Protection issues, restraint of trade, maybe breach of contract, and possibily racketeering at minimum. There may even be some applicable state statutes about business practices that could be added to the complaint.

I have often thought of the same action as one group is unquestionably treated differently from another. Have seen some "stars" here in Calif go to the head of the line w/o any prior purchases. So, the burden of proof may not be so hard to establish.

There is certainly more than a free market approach at play here which could work against ferrari, and I am certain there are plenty of p.o'd potntial buyers that could tell their stories in support!.

 

Ryan,

Go back to your review of torts and Con Law. More important for you in the long run.

These folks are dreaming! Include Ferrari with a Honda accident. Where's the proximate cause analysis? A little far fetched! You think there may have been a break in the chain of causation here?

And the world thought this occurred only in Calif!

These plaintiffs might be dreaming here!

 

But, who cares about the PO'd potential buyers? Why should the judicial system devote scarce resources to vindicating some wanker's "right" to buy a new Ferrari? If I can't get a new Ferrari at list, I can get it at a premium, or I can buy any number of used Ferraris, or I can buy something else - what harm is there to a frustrated Ferrari buyer that any of us should waste a second's thought caring about? This is all about ego, nothing more; some guy who thinks he's entitled to VIP treatment has his feelings hurt and sense of self worth deflated because he can't get the luxury item he wants when he wants it - isn't that more than a little pathetic?

 

LOL... I do have paperwork and books in front of me to write a motion to suppress I have to submit to court Wednesday.

This is a crazy plaintiff to name all of these parties in this situation. Representing herself pro se, even. This is going to get a huge smackdown in a motion to dismiss. Just too bad all parties will have to call their lawyers and pay them to deal with this.

 

Yes it's crazy indeed!

I am sure the judge will laugh!

 

You are certaintly entitled to your opinion but should a scenario such as this occur to you I am certain you would be displeased!

These is more to this legally than meets the eye!

 

Greg,

I wish you were in Florida. You actualy sound like a lawyer. I can't find anyone in this state who can even spell it. I've been trying to find someone to take my private nuisance case but most of the time they have no idea what I'm even talking about.............

 

When that's your education and training you can't get away from it.

I am planning w/in the next 2 years to return to it.

There are a few major issues here in Calif I want to correct, and it's the only way I can do it.

I can find you someone in Fla if you need. Plenty of my classmates practicing there.

 

GCalo,

Practically speaking, it may be true that people are treated differently when it comes to "the list" and what must be done to become a first time purchaser. Is the system discriminatory? Of course it is, but that's the problem when demand exceeds supply: there must be some way of allocating the scarce resources. Economists will say that such an equilibrium would lead to an increase in prices until supply meets demand. So, essentially, what you have here, theoretically, is a transfer of wealth to the folks who get the cars. Of course, if you ever actually sell your car and recognize that wealth transfer, you'll likely lose your favored status.

However, let's get back to a legal analysis. Explain to me the damages of the potential buyers who can't get a car? They're free to buy a used car. They're free to buy other makes of cars. So, why, precisely, must they absolutely, positively be entitled to a brand spanking new Ferrari? Admittedly, Ferrari does indeed let "friends" jump the list. But, if you don't like it, you certainly don't have to buy a Ferrari. Ferruccio Lamborghini and Jay Leno saw it this way.

And, exactly what good can come of this lawsuit? Class action or otherwise? My best friend has been waiting for a 360 spyder (now a 430 spyder) on the list for 6 years! Should this lawyer be moved ahead of him? What's the compensatory and punitive damages?

This case is troubling on so many levels. I agree that there are injustices in the world. But, as WCH stated, this is about EGOS. If you want to fight injustices, there are far more worthy pursuits. On the surface, without reading the filings, this just makes me PO'd at the plaintiff and smacks of some child pouting because he didn't get his favorite toy.

And the Fast and the Furious lawsuit? Where do we even begin to criticize that?

CW

 

I'm in Tampa Bay, Pasco county to be exact. My neighbor in an upscale waterfront community is renting his home out as a vacation rental. People rent by the day or week etc. Obviously the pool gets more use than if normal working people were there. The renters are up late and party till the wee hours 10 feet away from my bedroom window. It's gone on for a year now and I'm ready to kill someone. I've had verbals with the owner to no avail and have fired off the obligatory certified letter etc. Now I'm ready take him to court. It's a catch 22 with the noise laws since they are all stated in decibals but the cops don't carry meters so they refuse to enforce or take any action. From my research I do have a case as defined by Private nuisance laws.
If you can connect me with someone in my area I have NO problem writing the check(s)

Ben

 

Ben,

You need to approach this as a "private nuisance" issue. You can be far more successful in this manner that attempting to approach it as noise complaints through the police. Once the action is filed, you ask for a TRO, and then move to a permanent injunction.

There is a bit of work involved, but in this manner once you have the TRO you don't need to establish any SPL's beyond what is reasonable. The party would be strictly liable to follow the court's order. Failing that you can have the offending parties arrested. That will stop the problem fast.

Are there any CC &R's in that community? If yes, you can pressure the association. We live with them here in Calif, and theya re great. They work immediatley even with dog barkings!

Let me check on Monday to see if I can find you someone in your area.

Can you please e-mail me with your name address, and contact info to [email protected]?

 

"You are certaintly entitled to your opinion but should a scenario such as this occur to you I am certain you would be displeased!"


Greg, no argument there - you're right, I might be displeased, or angry, or even outraged by car allocation decisions. Like everyone else, if I've done a lot of business with someone, I admit I tend to feel entitled to preferential treatment, and upset when I don't receive it. But, good grief, why should anyone feel sorry for me if I can't get a Ferrari and, most of all, why should the law provide a remedy for what really is an injury to my ego?

Should there be a class action for everyone who has to wait in line outside a club and watch the beautiful people walk straight past the bouncer? For the average Joe who doesn't get to date supermodels because they prefer rock stars? For everyone who can't get a Playstation 3 on the launch date? And so on.

CW mentions what I think is truly important - in a world of real wrongs and injuries and injustices, I just hate the idea of our courts wasting time on this.

And, finally, I think Ferrari should be able to sell cars to whomever it wishes, on whatever terms it wishes.

 

Is this just a lawyer attempting to push ahead of someone else that's paid his dues?

 

It's a free country with a free market. And, a privately owned business is not obligated to sell anything to anyone. I plan to be a future Ferrari owner, and I perfectly understand the "pecking order." I will end up buying a "used" car for a premium. That's just the way it its. So what? I am free to choose to go that route, or not buy one.

Having to pay a premium for a used Ferrari is what I call a "good problem to have." Very few people in the world are so fortunate as to have such "problems."

Mike

 

I have read all the posts and would like to ask this question in the context of the so called dealer's list: Does there not exist a legal obligation of the seller to precisely list the Ts and Cs of the sale? IOW does the dealer not have a legal obligation to define exactly what will be delivered and when? I have never ordered a waiting list car but I presume that the dealers are telling these deeply deprived consumers that they are on a list (which they cannot inspect) for a delivery date that they will only be told of some time in the future (which may also be altered at the dealer/manufacturer's discretion) for a price which will change with factory pricing changes (which may not be advised until the delivery date) - but they will know the options.

Hell of a deal! Can you imagine the equivalent disclosures for say toothpaste?

Seriously though - in the mass market you cannot get away with Ts and Cs that look like the dealer caveats above but I wonder if they really have those stipulations in the fine print.

 

Why would they have any legal obligations? There is no contract involved.

Mike

 

I have an idea; how about just leaving the dealership, going somewhere else, and buying something else. How hard would that be?

This guy's acting like a 2 year old.

 

Lets say that you do jump through the hoops. You're told that if you buy a used Ferrari you will be given a chance to get one at list. You go back to the dealer and buy another car from them then a third , then give them a deposit to be placed on the list. You wait and wait for the "phone call". It doesn't come. You have made several purchases from the dealer based on the promise that you will be able to spec out a new car. You may not have the purchases if you knew they had no intention of getting you a car at list. Doesn't this amount to a "bait and switch" kind of situation where you see an add for a product at a low price you get to the store and find out it isn't available the the store tries to sell you something different or for more money. I believe there are laws protecting people from these practices.