**IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ____ CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAIʻI**

[// GUIDANCE: Insert the appropriate state‐court circuit (e.g., “First Circuit”).]

Civil No. ______

Judge: __

[PLAINTIFF FULL LEGAL NAME],
an individual resident of the State of Hawaiʻi,
Plaintiff,

v.

[DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER NAME],
a [foreign/domestic] corporation, and
[DEFENDANT DEALERSHIP NAME],
a Hawaiʻi corporation,
Defendants.

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE HAWAIʻI MOTOR VEHICLE EXPRESS WARRANTY ENFORCEMENT ACT (HRS § 481I-1 et seq.), BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES, VIOLATION OF THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.), AND RELATED RELIEF

[// GUIDANCE: This template is intentionally comprehensive. Remove any causes of action that do not apply, and add others (e.g., deceptive trade practices) if appropriate to the facts.]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Document Header
II. Definitions
III. Operative Allegations
IV. Representations & Warranties (Alleged)
V. Covenants & Statutory Requirements
VI. Default & Remedies Sought
VII. Risk Allocation & Damages Limitation
VIII. Dispute Resolution Framework
IX. General Provisions & Prayer for Relief
X. Execution Block & Verification

[// GUIDANCE: Hovering mouse over section headings in most modern word processors will display the table of contents hyperlinks.]

I. DOCUMENT HEADER

1. Parties.
   a. Plaintiff. [PLAINTIFF] (“Plaintiff”) is an individual domiciled in __ County, Hawaiʻi.
   b. Defendants.
   i. [MANUFACTURER] (“Manufacturer”) is a corporation organized under the laws of _, authorized to do business in Hawaiʻi, and may be served via its registered agent: [AGENT].
   ii. [DEALER] (“Dealer,” and together with Manufacturer, “Defendants”) is a Hawaiʻi corporation with its principal place of business in ___ County, Hawaiʻi, and may be served at: [ADDRESS].

2. Recitals & Jurisdiction.
   a. This action arises under the Hawaiʻi Motor Vehicle Express Warranty Enforcement Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481I-1 et seq. (the “Hawaiʻi Lemon Law”), the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., and common-law warranty doctrines.
   b. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 603-36 because a substantial part of the events complained of occurred in this circuit and Defendants do business herein.
   c. Amount in Controversy. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

3. Effective Date. This pleading is deemed filed on the date stamped by the Clerk.

II. DEFINITIONS

The following defined terms apply throughout this Complaint:

1. “Vehicle” – the [YEAR, MAKE, MODEL, VIN] automobile purchased by Plaintiff on [PURCHASE DATE].
2. “Express Warranty” – the written warranty provided by Manufacturer at the time of sale.
3. “Nonconformity” – any defect, condition, or malfunction that substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of the Vehicle, as defined in Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481I-2.
4. “Repair Attempts” – any attempt by Defendants or their authorized agents to diagnose, adjust, or otherwise remedy a Nonconformity.
5. “Lemon Law Period” – the one-year/12,000-mile statutory period set forth in Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481I-2.

[// GUIDANCE: Add, delete, or refine definitions consistent with the facts.]

III. OPERATIVE ALLEGATIONS

1. Purchase & Delivery.
   a. On [PURCHASE DATE], Plaintiff purchased the Vehicle from Dealer for $[PRICE], financed through [LENDER], and simultaneously received the Express Warranty.
   b. Title to the Vehicle was delivered in Hawaiʻi; therefore Hawaiʻi law governs.

2. Emergence of Nonconformities.
   a. Within [] miles and [] days of delivery, the Vehicle manifested a serious Nonconformity: [DESCRIBE DEFECT—e.g., “engine stalls without warning”].
   b. Additional Nonconformities later arose, including but not limited to [LIST].

3. Repair History. Between [DATE] and [DATE], Plaintiff tendered the Vehicle to Defendants on at least [] separate occasions for Repair Attempts totaling [] cumulative days out of service, all within the Lemon Law Period.
   [// GUIDANCE: Attach warranty repair orders as Exhibit A.]

4. Notice & Opportunity to Cure.
   a. On [DATE], Plaintiff provided written notice to Manufacturer pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481I-4(b).
   b. Defendants failed to remedy the Nonconformities or replace/refund the Vehicle as statutorily required.

5. Informal Dispute Settlement Procedure.
   a. [If applicable:] Manufacturer maintains an informal dispute settlement procedure (“IDSP”) qualified under 16 C.F.R. pt. 703.
   b. Plaintiff submitted a claim to the IDSP on [DATE]; the IDSP decision (Exhibit B) failed to afford the relief mandated by state law.
   c. All prerequisites to filing suit have been satisfied or waived.

IV. REPRESENTATIONS & WARRANTIES (ALLEGED)

1. Express Warranty. Manufacturer expressly warranted that it would (i) repair defects in workmanship or materials arising during the warranty term and (ii) conform the Vehicle to all written specifications.

2. Implied Warranties. Defendants impliedly warranted that the Vehicle was of merchantable quality and fit for its ordinary purpose under Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 490:2-314 & 2-315 (U.C.C. as adopted).

3. Statutory Warranties. Under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481I-3(a), Manufacturer warranted the Vehicle would be free from Nonconformities during the Lemon Law Period.

4. Survival. All warranties survive delivery and do not merge into any instrument of conveyance.

V. COVENANTS & STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

1. Manufacturer’s Statutory Duties. Pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481I-4(a), Manufacturer must repair any Nonconformity after proper notice and within a reasonable number of attempts.

2. Replacement/Refund Obligation. If unable to conform the Vehicle after a reasonable number of attempts, Manufacturer must either (i) replace the Vehicle with a comparable new vehicle or (ii) refund the full purchase price, less a reasonable offset for use. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481I-3(b).

3. Defendant Dealer’s Obligations. Dealer covenanted to service the Vehicle under both Manufacturer’s Express Warranty and Dealer’s own obligations under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481I-3(c).

VI. DEFAULT & REMEDIES

1. Events of Default.
   a. Failure to repair the Nonconformity within [__] cumulative days in service.
   b. Exceeding the statutory “reasonable number of attempts” (4 repair attempts for the same Nonconformity, or 30 days out of service). Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481I-2.

2. Statutory Remedies. Plaintiff elects the remedy of Vehicle replacement OR refund of the purchase price (at Plaintiff’s option). Plaintiff also seeks recovery of:
   a. Collateral charges (taxes, fees, finance charges);
   b. Incidental and consequential damages;
   c. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs per Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481I-3(d).

3. Graduated Relief. Should the Court decline replacement/refund, Plaintiff seeks damages capped at the Vehicle’s purchase price pursuant to the “vehicle value” liability cap requested in the metadata above.

VII. RISK ALLOCATION & DAMAGES LIMITATION

1. Punitive Damages. Plaintiff reserves the right to seek punitive damages under common-law fraud or deceptive practices, subject to demonstration of wilful misconduct.
2. Liability Cap. In no event shall recovery exceed the Vehicle’s purchase price, except as expressly authorized by statute for attorney fees and costs.

[// GUIDANCE: Modify or remove this provision if punitive damages are clearly available.]

VIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

1. Governing Law. This action is governed by the laws of the State of Hawaiʻi, including Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481I-1 et seq., without regard to conflict-of-laws principles.

2. Forum Selection. The parties irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state courts of Hawaiʻi sitting in ______ County.

3. Arbitration. Hawaiʻi Lemon Law requires exhaustion of any Manufacturer-sponsored IDSP before filing suit only if such program is certified. Plaintiff has complied (see § III.5) or such requirement is inapplicable.

4. Jury Demand. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right under Article I, § 13 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution and Haw. R. Civ. P. 38.

5. Injunctive Relief Preservation. Nothing herein shall preclude the Court from ordering affirmative equitable relief, including Vehicle replacement.

IX. GENERAL PROVISIONS & PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:

A. Vehicle replacement with a new, comparable vehicle OR refund of the full purchase price, at Plaintiff’s election;
B. Reimbursement of all collateral charges, incidental, and consequential damages;
C. Attorneys’ fees and litigation costs pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481I-3(d) and 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(2);
D. Pre- and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;
E. Such other and further relief, legal or equitable, as the Court deems just and proper.

X. EXECUTION BLOCK & VERIFICATION

Respectfully submitted this ___ day of ____, 20__.

[ATTORNEY NAME]
HAWAIʻI BAR NO. _____
[FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE] | [EMAIL]
Attorney for Plaintiff

VERIFICATION

I, [PLAINTIFF NAME], declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing Complaint and that the factual allegations therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DATED: ______, Hawaiʻi.

[PLAINTIFF NAME]
Notary Public
State of Hawaiʻi, Judicial Circuit of _
My Commission Expires: _

[// GUIDANCE: Hawaiʻi R. Civ. P. 11 does not mandate verification, but many practitioners include it in consumer cases. Remove or modify as local practice dictates.]

EXHIBIT LIST (placeholders)

A. Warranty Repair Orders (copies)
B. IDSP Decision (if any)
C. Purchase Contract & Financing Documents
D. Express Warranty Booklet

[// END OF TEMPLATE]