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)

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