Dashboards Complaint

1


IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
DANIELA PEREZ and JESUS DEL RIO
on behalf of themselves and all others GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
similarly situated,
CASE NUMBER:
Plaintiffs,
v.

G.F.B ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a LEXUS OF KENDALL,
a Delaware corporation; SCANLON LEXUS OF
FORT MYERS, INC., a Florida corporation and
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A, INC.,
a California corporation

Defendants.
___________________________________________________/

CLASS REPRESENTATION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, DANIELA PEREZ and JESUS DEL RIO (hereinafter referred to collectively
as "CLASS REPRESENTATIVES”) sue G.F.B ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a LEXUS OF
KENDALL (hereinafter “LEXUS K”) SCANLON LEXUS OF FORT MYERS, INC.
(hereinafter “LEXUS F”) and TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A, INC., (hereinafter
"TOYOTA"), and allege:`
The Parties
1. Plaintiff, DANIELA PEREZ, is sui juris and a resident of Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
2. Plaintiff, JESUS DEL RIO is sui juris and a resident of Lee County, Florida
3. Defendant, LEXUS K, is a duly organized and existing corporation in the State of
Delaware, maintaining its principal offices in Miami-Dade, Florida and doing business under the
fictitious name Lexus of Kendall.
4. Defendant, LEXUS F, is a duly organized and existing corporation in the State of
Florida, maintaining its principal offices in Lee County, Florida.
Filing # 16148434 Electronically Filed 07/21/2014 03:16:48 PM

2


5. Defendant, TOYOTA, is a duly organized and existing corporation in the State of
California with its principal place of business in California.
Jurisdiction and Venue
6. Defendant, LEXUS K, is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court in that it is a
Delaware corporation maintaining its principal offices in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Service
of process on Defendant is predicated on Fla. Stat. § 48.081 and Fla. Stat. § 48.091.
7. Defendant, LEXUS F, is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court in that it is a
Florida corporation who solicits business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Service of process on
Defendant is predicated on Fla. Stat. § 48.081 and Fla. Stat. § 48.091.
8. Defendant, TOYOTA, is a California corporation with its principal place of
business located in California. At all times material to this cause of action, TOYOTA
manufactured, sold, warranted, serviced and/or distributed vehicles throughout Florida including
Miami-Dade County, under the Lexus brand name which is a division of TOYOTA. Service of
process on Defendant is predicated on Fla. Stat. § 48.081 and Fla. Stat. § 48.091.
9. TOYOTA, is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court in that it operates, conducts,
engages in and carries on a business or business venture in the State of Florida and has offices or
agencies in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 48.193(1)(a), Florida Statutes; is engaged in
substantial and isolated activity within the State of Florida, both intrastate and otherwise through
the sale, distribution and service of its automobile products, automobile parts, automobile
accessories and automobile components pursuant to Section 48.193(1)(f)(2), Florida Statutes;
and has breached an express and implied warrantee occasioning damage or injury in the State of
Florida pursuant to Section 48.193(1)(g), Florida Statutes. As a foreign corporation, TOYOTA
does business and maintains agents to conduct its business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

3


10. Defendants, LEXUS K, LEXUS F and TOYOTA, by and through their agents,
servants, employees, subsidiaries and related companies, as well as from and through offices in
Miami-Dade County, Florida, Lee County and throughout Florida, advertised, offered for sale,
and serviced Lexus branded vehicles to the CLASS REPRESENTATIVES and members of the
Class. The acts and omissions of LEXUS K, LEXUS F and TOYOTA giving rise to this action
occurred in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Lee County and throughout Florida. Accordingly,
jurisdiction and venue are proper in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
11. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(4)(A), more than two-thirds (2/3), if not all, of
the members of the proposed Class, as set forth below, are citizens of the State of Florida. One
of the two primary Defendants from whom significant relief is sought by the members of the
Class and whose conduct forms a significant basis for those claims are citizens of the State of
Florida. Further, the principal injuries occurring to the CLASS REPRESENTATIVES and the
members of the Class occurred in the State of Florida. In the three (3) years preceding the filing
of this action, no other class action has been filed asserting the same or similar factual allegations
against any of the Defendants on behalf of the same persons.
12. Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(4)(B) two-thirds (2/3), if not all of
the members of the proposed Class in the aggregate, and two of the three defendants, are citizens
of the State of Florida.
13. CLASS REPRESENTATIVES further allege that LEXUS K, LEXUS F and
TOYOTA, have, at all times material to this cause of action, through their respective agents,
servants, employees, subsidiaries and related companies, breached express and implied
warrantees by selling and disseminating to the public a defective product, namely, Lexus
vehicles as more particularly set forth hereinafter.



4


Preliminary Allegations

14. The CLASS REPRESENTATIVES and the class own Lexus branded vehicles.
15. LEXUS K, LEXUS F and TOYOTA sell and market passenger vehicles to the
general public. These vehicles are marketed as luxury vehicles and as the product of Lexus’
never-ending “pursuit of perfection.” The vehicles purchased by the Class were designed,
manufactured, and/or distributed by TOYOTA and sold, leased, distributed, or serviced by
LEXUS K, LEXUS F and other Lexus dealerships throughout Florida.
16. TOYOTA, LEXUS K and LEXUS F were and are in the business of designing,
manufacturing, assembling, testing, marketing, distributing, servicing, selling and leasing Lexus
vehicles.
17. Between the date of their respective purchase and the date of the filing of this
Complaint, the Lexus vehicles owned by the CLASS REPRESENTATIVES have suffered
damage to the dashboard and various interior components as a result of heat encountered during
the normal use of the vehicles in Florida. The Florida heat caused the dashboards and other
similarly constructed interior components to become sticky, oily, shinny, cracked and degraded
in appearance.
18. This condition was and is known to LEXUS K, LEXUS F and TOYOTA.
TOYOTA issued service bulletin L-SB-0144-11 in 2011 recognizing the defect and instructing
its Lexus dealers to repair and replace the damage pursuant to the Lexus Comprehensive
Warrantee.
19. LEXUS K, LEXUS F and TOYOTA have refused to repair the damage for those
vehicles which are no longer under the Lexus Comprehensive Warrantee.
20. At all times material hereto, the CLASS REPRESENTATIVES and the Class
properly maintained and operated their Lexus vehicles.


5


Class Representations Allegations

A. Commonality
21. There are numerous questions of law and fact that are common to the claim of the
CLASS REPRESENTATIVES and the Class. Among these common questions of law and fact
are the following:
a) Whether the CLASS REPRESENTATIVES and the Class purchased or
acquired a Lexus vehicle;
b) Whether the CLASS REPRESENTATIVES and the Class have
experienced damage to the dashboard and interior their Lexus vehicle;
d) Whether there exists an implied warranty between LEXUS K, LEXUS F,
TOYOTA and the CLASS REPRESENTATIVES and the Class regarding the fitness of the
Lexus vehicles;
d) Whether LEXUS K, LEXUS F and TOYOTA breached their implied
warranties; and
e) Whether the CLASS REPRESENTATIVES and the Class have been
damaged as a result of the breach of implied warranty.

B. Numerosity
22. The Class members are defined as:
All individuals in Florida who own a Lexus vehicle
which has experienced damage to the dashboard or
interior as a result of heat within the applicable
limitations period.

23. The members of the Class are so numerous that separate joinder of each member
is impracticable. Upon information and belief, and pending discovery, the Class consists of
more than one thousand members constituted by individuals that purchased or own a Lexus in
the State of Florida.

6


24. Defendant, LEXUS K and LEXUS F, its officers, directors or any person or other
entity related to, affiliated with, or employed by LEXUS are excluded from the indicated Class.
25. Defendant, TOYOTA, its officers, directors or any person or other entity related
to, affiliated with, or employed by TOYOTA are excluded from the indicated Class.

C. Typicality
26. The CLASS REPRESENTATIVES' claims are typical of the claims of the
members of the Class in that each Class member has purchased or owns a Lexus which contains
the defective dashboard or interior.
27. The defective dashboard and interior has caused damage which LEXUS K,
LEXUS F and TOYOTA have refused, and continue to refuse, to repair pursuant to its implied
warrantee. This is the core issue in this case which predominate over all other issues in this
matter.
28. The CLASS REPRESENTATIVES and the members of the Class are all owners
of Lexus vehicles which have experienced heat damage as described herein. Upon information
and belief, there has never been a prior lawsuit certified as a class on behalf of the CLASS
REPRESENTATIVES and the Class.
D. Adequacy of Representation
29. The CLASS REPRESENTATIVES are adequate representatives of the Class and
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. The CLASS REPRESENTATIVES
are committed to the vigorous prosecution of this action and have retained competent counsel,
experienced in litigation of this nature to represent them. There is no hostility of interest
between or among the CLASS REPRESENTATIVES and the unnamed Class members.
30. The CLASS REPRESENTATIVES anticipate no difficulty in the management of
this litigation as a Class action. To prosecute this case, the CLASS REPRESENTATIVES have
chosen the Ferraro Law Firm, P.A.. This Miami law firm has experience in complex litigation

7


and class action litigation. This firm has the financial and legal resources to meet the substantial
costs and legal issues associated with this type of litigation.

E. Requirements of Rule 1.220(b)(2) and (b)(3)
31. The Lexus manufactured, distributed sold or serviced by LEXUS K, LEXUS F
and TOYOTA to the CLASS REPRESENTATIVES and the Class all contained the same design
defect, warranties giving rise to the breach and the resulting damage to the CLASS
REPRESENTATIVES and the Class. The damage occasioned to the dashboard and interior
which breached the express warrantee and continues to breach the implied warrantee is generally
applicable to all members of the Class.
32. The questions of law and fact common to the claim of the CLASS
REPRESENTATIVES and the claims of each Class member predominate over any question of
law and fact affecting only individual members of the Class and class representation is superior
to other available methods to the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. There are no
particular and overriding interests of any Class member individually controlling the prosecution
of separate claims. Upon information and belief, there is no pending litigation to which any
Class member is a party and in which any question of law or fact controverted in this action is or
will be adjudicated. Miami-Dade County is a desirable forum for the concentration of this
litigation in that a large percentage of the Class members reside in South Florida area.
Moreover, there are no difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of the claims on
behalf of the Class.
33. This action is properly maintained as a Class action inasmuch as the questions of
law and fact common to the Class members predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members. This is established by virtue of the singular warrantee claims arising from
the defective dashboard and interior; there are no individual or unique aspects of the claim of the
CLASS REPRESENTATIVES or any Class member contrary to permitting class treatment. A

8


class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy by avoiding a multiplicity of suits creating a drain of a time and judicial resources of
the Clerk and the Courts.
34. There are no particular and overriding interests of any Class member in
individually controlling the prosecution of separate claims. Each Class members claim arises
from the same basic operative fact arising from the defective dashboard and interior. Upon
information and belief, there is no pending litigation to which any Class member is a party and in
which any question of law or fact controverted in this action is or will be adjudicated. Miami-
Dade County is the desirable forum for the concentration of this litigation in that LEXUS K and
TOYOTA conduct their business activities here. Moreover, there are no difficulties likely to be
encountered in the management of the claims on behalf of the Class.
35. Any defenses asserted by LEXUS K, LEXUS F or TOYOTA will be very similar,
if not identical, as to the CLASS REPRESENTATIVES and the Class members. It would be
impractical to assert these claims and defenses in separate litigation.
COUNT I
Breach of Implied Warranty
36. The CLASS REPRESENTATIVES and the Class members readopt and reallege
paragraphs 1 through 35 as though fully set forth herein.
37. At all times, LEXUS K, LEXUS F and TOYOTA, impliedly warranted to the
CLASS REPRESENTATIVES and the Class, that the Lexus was fit for its intended use and
purpose as a passenger vehicle in Florida.
38. At all times, the CLASS REPRESENTATIVES and the Class relied on
representations made by LEXUS K, LEXUS F and TOYOTA that Lexus vehicles were luxury
vehicles designed to be used in Florida.

9


39. LEXUS K, LEXUS F and TOYOTA have breached their implied warranties to
the CLASS REPRESENTATIVES and the Class in that the defect in the dashboard and interior
renders the Lexus unfit for its intended use and purpose in Florida.
40. As a direct and proximate result of LEXUS K, LEXUS F and TOYOTA’s breach,
the CLASS REPRESENTATIVES and the Class have and will suffered monetary loss for
required repairs to the dashboard and interior and resulting loss of use of their vehicles.
WHEREFORE, the CLASS REPRESENTATIVES and the Class demand judgment
against LEXUS K, LEXUS F and TOYOTA for damages, costs, interest and all other relief
deemed appropriate by this Court.
Class Relief Sought
41. WHEREFORE, the CLASS REPRESENTATIVES and the Class demand
judgment against TOYOTA, LEXUS K and LEXUS F by obtaining:
(a) An order certifying the proposed Class and any appropriate sub-classes;
(b) An order appointing the CLASS REPRESENTATIVES as Class
Representatives;
(c) An order appointing The Ferraro Law Firm, P.A. as Class counsel;
(d) An award of attorneys fees to class counsel in accordance with prevailing
factors and considerations for determination of class counsel fees in the
State of Florida; and

(e) Any and all further relief this Court deems just and proper.



10



DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
The Plaintiffs and the Class members demand trial by jury on all issues so triable as a
matter of right.
Dated this 21st day of July, 2014.



/s/ Juan P. Bauta, II
_____________________________
JUAN P. BAUTA, II, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No.: 894060
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A.
600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3800
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 375-0111
Facsimile: (305) 379-6222
[email protected]