Lemon Law Complaint - Maine

MAINE LEMON LAW COMPLAINT

1. CAPTION

STATE OF MAINE

[DISTRICT / SUPERIOR] COURT

[________________] COUNTY / LOCATION

Docket No. [________________]

COMPLAINT UNDER THE MAINE LEMON LAW, 10 M.R.S. §§ 1161-1169

Plaintiff alleges:

2. PARTIES, COURT, AND VEHICLE

1. Plaintiff [NAME] resides in [COUNTY, STATE] and is a “consumer” under 10 M.R.S. § 1161(1) because Plaintiff is the [NON-RESALE PURCHASER / LESSEE / EXPRESS-WARRANTY-TERM TRANSFEREE / PERSON ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE WARRANTY].

2. Plaintiff is not a governmental entity or a business or commercial enterprise that registers three or more motor vehicles.

3. Defendant [NAME] is a “manufacturer” under § 1161(2) because it is the [MANUFACTURER / IMPORTER / DISTRIBUTOR / NAMED EXPRESS-WARRANTY WARRANTOR] of the Vehicle. Defendant may be served through [AGENT AND ADDRESS].

4. On [DATE], Plaintiff [PURCHASED / LEASED / RECEIVED] a [YEAR / MAKE / MODEL], VIN [VIN] (the “Vehicle”), which was sold or leased in Maine. The transaction and original-delivery documents are attached as Exhibit A.

5. The Vehicle was designed to convey passengers or property on public highways and is not used primarily for commercial purposes with a gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or more. § 1161(3).

6. The applicable express warranties are attached or identified in Exhibit B.

7. This Court has jurisdiction because [STATE THE CURRENT FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS].

8. Venue is proper because [STATE THE CURRENT FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS].

3. PROCEDURAL ROUTE AND DEADLINES

9. Select one route and delete the others:

A. Direct Enforcement Action

10. ☐ Plaintiff brings a direct action to enforce the Maine Lemon Law.

11. Select the applicable allegation under 10 M.R.S. § 1165:

• ☐ Defendant had not established an informal dispute settlement procedure complying in all respects with 16 C.F.R. Part 703, so § 1165 imposed no first-resort requirement.
• ☐ Plaintiff first resorted to Defendant's qualifying procedure on [DATE]; [40 DAYS HAVE PASSED / THE PROCEDURE COMPLETED ITS PART 703.5(d) DUTIES].
• ☐ Plaintiff first resorted to state-certified arbitration, satisfying the alternative stated in § 1165.

12. The Lemon Law does not state a separate limitations period for this direct enforcement action. Plaintiff filed within six years after accrual under 14 M.R.S. § 752. The claim accrued no earlier than [DATE AND FACTS].

B. Consumer Appeal from State-Certified Arbitration

13. ☐ Plaintiff requested state-certified arbitration within three years after original delivery or the express-warranty term, whichever came first, and the State accepted the application as making proper Maine Lemon Law claims. 10 M.R.S. § 1169(1).

14. The finding issued on [DATE] and is attached as Exhibit C.

15. Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the finding and filed this petition for a trial de novo in the Superior Court of the county where the sale occurred within 21 days after issuance. § 1169(5)-(6).

C. Enforcement of Favorable State-Arbitration Finding

16. ☐ State-certified arbitration found that the Vehicle met the statutory refund-or-replacement standards and that Defendant failed to provide the remedy. The finding is attached as Exhibit C.

17. Defendant received the finding on [DATE], did not deliver the required remedy within 21 days, did not obtain a good-cause extension for replacement, and did not file a timely appeal. § 1169(4), (8).

18. Plaintiff brings this action to enforce the chapter and the unappealed finding.

4. TIMELY REPORT AND REPAIR HISTORY

19. Plaintiff reported each qualifying nonconformity to Defendant, its agent, or its authorized dealer during the express-warranty term and before the earlier of three years after original delivery or the Vehicle's first 18,000 miles. § 1163(1).

20. The report and repair facts are:

21. Defendant, its agent, or its authorized dealer did not make the repairs necessary to conform the Vehicle to the express warranties.

22. The following defect or condition, or combination of defects or conditions, continues and substantially impairs the Vehicle's [USE / SAFETY / VALUE]: [DETAILS].

23. The nonconformity did not result from abuse, neglect, or an unauthorized modification or alteration by anyone other than Defendant, its agent, or its authorized dealer. § 1164.

5. REASONABLE-NUMBER PRESUMPTION

24. Select each presumption supported by the evidence under § 1163(3):

• ☐ Three same-nonconformity attempts. The same nonconformity was subject to repair three or more times within the applicable period and continues to exist.
• ☐ Serious braking or steering failure. The same nonconformity resulted in a serious failure of the braking or steering system and was subject to repair at least once within the applicable period.
• ☐ Fifteen business days. The Vehicle was out of service by reason of repair attempts for any defect or condition, or combination, for a cumulative total of at least 15 business days within the applicable period.

25. The facts supporting the selected presumption are: [DETAILS].

26. If no presumption is selected, the repair history and surrounding facts nevertheless establish a reasonable number of attempts: [DETAILS].

27. Any claimed extension is limited to time when repair services were unavailable because of war, invasion, strike, fire, flood, or other natural disaster. § 1163(4).

6. WRITTEN REMEDY NOTICE AND FINAL OPPORTUNITY

28. After Defendant or its agents were unable to make the necessary repairs, Plaintiff notified Defendant or an authorized dealer in writing of Plaintiff's desire for refund or replacement. § 1163(3-A). The notice and delivery proof are attached as Exhibit D.

29. If the nonconformity resulted in a serious braking or steering failure, Plaintiff was permitted to give this notice after one repair attempt.

30. For the seven business days following receipt, Defendant had a final opportunity to repair at a facility reasonably accessible to Plaintiff.

31. Defendant did not correct the nonconformity during that final opportunity.

7. REFUND OR REPLACEMENT DUTY

32. After a reasonable number of attempts, Defendant was unable to conform the Vehicle to the applicable express warranty by repairing a defect or condition, or combination, substantially impairing its use, safety, or value.

33. Defendant was therefore required to replace the Vehicle with a comparable motor vehicle or accept return and make the statutory refund. § 1163(2).

34. Plaintiff rejected or may reject any offered replacement and elect refund.

35. Plaintiff elected [COMPARABLE REPLACEMENT / RETURN AND REFUND] on [DATE], but Defendant did not provide the elected remedy.

8. REFUND CALCULATION

36. The refund under § 1163(2), less the reasonable allowance for use, consists of:

37. The reasonable allowance for use may not exceed the lesser of:

• one-third of the IRS business-use mileage amount described in § 1161(4), applied to the mileage reported on the accepted state-arbitration application plus mileage directly attributable to consumer use beyond 20,000 miles; or
• 10% of the Vehicle's purchase price.

38. If no state-arbitration application was accepted, counsel must determine how § 1161(4)'s application-mileage language affects the calculation before alleging a dollar offset.

39. The refund must be allocated to Plaintiff and any secured party, or to lessor and lessee, as their interests exist when the refund is made. § 1163(2).

40. If Plaintiff is a lessee, the lease and contractual obligations terminate upon a decision that the Vehicle does not conform to the express warranty and return to the lessor; Plaintiff is not liable to Defendant or the lessor for further lease costs. § 1168(3).

9. COUNT I — MAINE LEMON LAW

41. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 40, with unused alternatives deleted.

42. Plaintiff is a consumer, Defendant is a manufacturer, and the Vehicle is covered under § 1161.

43. Plaintiff timely reported the nonconformity, Defendant did not conform the Vehicle after a reasonable number of attempts, and Plaintiff completed the written remedy notice and final repair opportunity required by § 1163.

44. Plaintiff satisfied any applicable first-resort requirement under § 1165.

45. Defendant failed to provide the refund or comparable replacement required by § 1163(2).

46. Plaintiff requests the elected statutory remedy and the reasonable attorney's fees and costs the Court may award in a successful enforcement action under § 1167.

10. OPTIONAL COUNT II — MAINE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT

47. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 46.

48. Plaintiff purchased or leased the Vehicle primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

49. Defendant violated the Maine Lemon Law. Under § 1166, that violation is prima facie evidence of an unfair or deceptive trade practice, which 5 M.R.S. § 207 declares unlawful.

50. As a result of the practice, Plaintiff suffered this loss of money or property: [IDENTIFY LOSS AND CAUSATION].

51. At least 30 days before filing this damages claim, Plaintiff mailed or delivered the demand attached as Exhibit E, identifying Plaintiff and reasonably describing the unfair or deceptive practice and injuries. 5 M.R.S. § 213(1-A).

52. Plaintiff requests actual damages, restitution, and necessary and proper equitable relief under § 213(1).

53. If the Court finds a § 207 violation, Plaintiff requests the attorney's fees and costs required by § 213(2), subject to § 213(1-A)'s settlement-tender rule.

11. OPTIONAL ARBITRATION-SPECIFIC RELIEF

54. ☐ Successful appeal. If a refund-or-replacement finding is upheld, Plaintiff requests the continuing damages of up to $25 per qualifying day and mandatory fees and costs authorized by § 1169(5). If Defendant's appeal lacked a reasonable basis or was frivolous, Plaintiff requests doubling of the total award.

55. ☐ Failure to abide or appeal. Because Defendant neither abided by the favorable finding nor filed a timely appeal, Plaintiff requests no less than two times the actual award under § 1169(8), unless Defendant proves the statutory exception.

12. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff requests judgment:

1. Determining that the Vehicle meets the Maine Lemon Law standards;
2. Ordering Defendant to provide [A COMPARABLE REPLACEMENT / THE CORRECT REFUND] under § 1163(2);
3. Allocating any refund among Plaintiff and the secured party or lessor as their interests exist;
4. Granting actual damages, restitution, and necessary and proper equitable relief under 5 M.R.S. § 213 if Count II is retained and proved;
5. Granting only the enhanced and continuing damages authorized by § 1169 for the selected arbitration route;
6. Awarding attorney's fees and costs under § 1167, § 1169, and/or 5 M.R.S. § 213 as applicable;
7. Awarding allowable interest; and
8. Granting any further relief authorized by the pleaded statutes and proved at trial.

13. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable. A plaintiff bringing a UTPA action in Superior Court has a statutory jury right under 5 M.R.S. § 213(1). Confirm jury availability for every retained count and selected court.

14. SIGNATURE BLOCK

Date: [DATE]

Respectfully submitted,

[ATTORNEY NAME]

Maine Bar No. [NUMBER]

[FIRM]

[ADDRESS]

[PHONE]

[EMAIL]

Attorney for Plaintiff

15. EXHIBIT CHECKLIST

• ☐ Exhibit A — Purchase, lease, transfer, and original-delivery documents
• ☐ Exhibit B — Applicable express warranties
• ☐ Exhibit C — State-arbitration application, acceptance, record, finding, receipt, extension, and appeal records, if applicable
• ☐ Exhibit D — Written refund-or-replacement notice and delivery proof
• ☐ Exhibit E — UTPA demand, delivery proof, response, and settlement tender, if Count II is retained
• ☐ Exhibit F — Complete repair orders and business-day calculation
• ☐ Exhibit G — Evidence of continuing nonconformity and substantial impairment of use, safety, or value
• ☐ Exhibit H — Purchase or lease refund calculation, finance and collateral charges, towing, storage, transportation, mileage, secured-party, lessor, and lessee interests
• ☐ Exhibit I — Evidence of UTPA loss and causation, if Count II is retained

16. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Maine Legislature — 10 M.R.S. § 1161
• Maine Legislature — 10 M.R.S. § 1162
• Maine Legislature — 10 M.R.S. § 1163
• Maine Legislature — 10 M.R.S. § 1164
• Maine Legislature — 10 M.R.S. § 1165
• Maine Legislature — 10 M.R.S. § 1166
• Maine Legislature — 10 M.R.S. § 1167
• Maine Legislature — 10 M.R.S. § 1168
• Maine Legislature — 10 M.R.S. § 1169
• Maine Legislature — 5 M.R.S. § 207
• Maine Legislature — 5 M.R.S. § 213
• Maine Legislature — 14 M.R.S. § 752
• Electronic Code of Federal Regulations — 16 C.F.R. Part 703