Lau v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC et al

Filing 77

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 3/12/2013. (mejlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 Northern District of California 6 7 DON LAU, No. C 11-01940 MEJ Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 9 MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC, 10 Defendant. _____________________________________/ 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 13 The Court has reviewed Defendant’s Supplemental Brief regarding whether the subject 14 vehicle qualifies as a consumer good and whether Plaintiff has standing under the Song-Beverly 15 Consumer Warranty Act to proceed with his claim, as well as Plaintiff’s response. Dkt. Nos. 71, 73. 16 In advance of the status conference set in this matter, the Court now poses the following questions to 17 Plaintiff. 18 1. Plaintiff disclosed the “possibility” of a sixth “personal use vehicle” registered to “Don Lau or 19 DT Floormasters, Inc.” in Interrogatory Nos. 32 to 39, but stated he was unable to find the 20 registration to confirm how any such sixth vehicle may have been registered. Based on these 21 responses, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has had six vehicles registered to DT Floormasters 22 during the time period identified in the Interrogatories. What is the accurate number of 23 vehicles registered to “Don Lau or DT Floormasters, Inc.” for each of the time periods 24 identified in Interrogatory Nos. 32 to 39? 25 26 2. Plaintiff asserts that “the relevant time period for counting how many vehicles are registered 27 should be at the time of initial purchase.” What is Plaintiff’s authority for this statement? 28 1 3. Plaintiff asserts that the Court should “only consider those vehicles that are primarily used for 2 business purposes” in considering whether and how many vehicles apply towards the “not 3 more than five motor vehicles” registered to DT Floormasters, Inc. What authority does 4 Plaintiff have to support this construction of the statue? 5 6 4. Has Plaintiff completed the filing of his revised corporate and personal income tax statements 7 for the years 2007 to 2012 such that the subject Mercedes vehicle is now reflected as a 8 personal-use vehicle? If so, how is the vehicle currently registered and titled? 9 10 Plaintiff shall file a brief responding to each of these questions by March 15, 2013. Defendant 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 may file a response by March 19, 2013, but such response is optional. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: March 12, 2013 _______________________________ Maria-Elena James United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?