IN THE [] CIRCUIT COURT OF [] COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
[State-Trial Court of General Jurisdiction]
Civil Action No.: ___
[PLAINTIFF FULL LEGAL NAME],
an individual resident of the State of Mississippi,
Plaintiff,
v.
[DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER LEGAL NAME],
a [State of Incorporation] corporation authorized to do business in Mississippi, and
[DEFENDANT DEALER LEGAL NAME]
a Mississippi limited liability company,
Defendants.
_______/
COMPLAINT
(FOR VIOLATION OF MISSISSIPPI MOTOR VEHICLE WARRANTY ENFORCEMENT ACT,
BREACH OF WARRANTY, AND RELATED RELIEF)
[// GUIDANCE: Tailor factual allegations to match your client’s circumstances, attach supporting documentation (repair orders, purchase contract, etc.), and ensure filing within the statute of limitations (see Miss. Code Ann. § 63-17-159(4)).]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Parties …………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
II. Jurisdiction and Venue …………………………………………………………….. 2
III. Definitions ………………………………………………………………………………. 3
IV. Factual Allegations ………………………………………………………………….. 4
V. Causes of Action ……………………………………………………………………… 6
Count I – Mississippi Lemon Law (Miss. Code Ann. §§ 63-17-151 et seq.) … 6
Count II – Breach of Express Warranty …………………………………………. 7
Count III – Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability ……………. 8
VI. Prayer for Relief ……………………………………………………………………… 9
VII. Jury Demand …………………………………………………………………………. 10
VIII. Certification & Verification ……………………………………………………… 10
IX. Certificate of Service ………………………………………………………………. 12
I. PARTIES
- Plaintiff. [PLAINTIFF FULL LEGAL NAME] (“Plaintiff”) is an adult individual residing at [Street Address], [City], Mississippi.
- Manufacturer Defendant. [DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER] (“Manufacturer”) is a [State of Incorporation] corporation with its principal place of business at [Address] and may be served through its registered agent for service of process, [Name & Address].
- Dealer Defendant. [DEFENDANT DEALER] (“Dealer”) is a Mississippi [LLC/corporation] with its principal place of business at [Address] and may be served via its registered agent, [Name & Address].
- Manufacturer and Dealer are collectively referred to as “Defendants.”
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
- This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under Miss. Code Ann. § 9-7-81 and § 63-17-159(4), which provides a private right of action for violations of the Mississippi Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act (the “MVWEA”).
- Venue is proper in this County pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 11-11-3(1)(a) because Defendants conducted business and the transactions at issue occurred here, and Plaintiff resides here.
- All pre-suit notice requirements, including participation in any Manufacturer informal dispute settlement procedure certified under Miss. Code Ann. § 63-17-163, have been satisfied or excused, as set forth below.
III. DEFINITIONS
The following terms are used throughout this Complaint:
A. “Act” or “MVWEA.” The Mississippi Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act, Miss. Code Ann. §§ 63-17-151 through 63-17-165.
B. “Nonconformity.” Any defect or condition that substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of the Vehicle and is covered by the express warranty. See Miss. Code Ann. § 63-17-155(f).
C. “Reasonable Number of Repair Attempts.” (i) Three (3) or more repair attempts for the same Nonconformity; or (ii) fifteen (15) or more cumulative business days out of service for warranty repair, as defined in Miss. Code Ann. § 63-17-159(1).
D. “Vehicle.” The [Year] [Make] [Model], VIN [____], purchased by Plaintiff on [Date].
[// GUIDANCE: Add additional defined terms if helpful; keep alphabetized.]
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
- On or about [Purchase Date], Plaintiff purchased the Vehicle from Dealer for a total cash price of $[____], inclusive of taxes, title, and fees, and received Manufacturer’s written limited warranty (“Warranty”).
- The Warranty promised that the Vehicle would be free from defects in materials and workmanship and would conform to Manufacturer’s specifications for at least [Warranty Duration/Mileage].
-
Shortly after purchase, the Vehicle exhibited numerous Nonconformities, including but not limited to:
a. Engine stalling and loss of power;
b. Electrical system failures causing dashboard lights to illuminate;
c. Transmission hesitation and harsh shifting; and
d. Recurrent steering column noise. -
Plaintiff delivered the Vehicle to authorized repair facilities on at least [##] separate occasions for the same Nonconformities, on the following dates: [List dates & mileage].
- Cumulatively, the Vehicle remained out of service for [##] business days within the first [18 months/24,000 miles], exceeding the statutory threshold.
- Despite these repair attempts, the Nonconformities persist and substantially impair the Vehicle’s use, value, and safety.
- Manufacturer maintains an informal dispute settlement procedure (“IDSP”). Plaintiff submitted a written claim to the IDSP on [Date], participated in the hearing on [Date], and obtained an unfavorable decision on [Date].
OR
Plaintiff is excused from filing with the IDSP because Manufacturer’s procedure is not certified by the Mississippi Attorney General as required by Miss. Code Ann. § 63-17-163(1). - Plaintiff provided written notice dated [Date] to Manufacturer demanding replacement or repurchase pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 63-17-159(3). Manufacturer has failed or refused to comply.
V. CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
Violation of Mississippi Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act
(Miss. Code Ann. §§ 63-17-151 et seq.)
- Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1–15 as though fully set forth herein.
- Defendants provided Plaintiff with the Warranty, thereby undertaking the obligations prescribed by the Act.
- The Vehicle developed one or more Nonconformities within the term of the Warranty.
- Defendants were afforded a Reasonable Number of Repair Attempts but failed to conform the Vehicle to the Warranty.
- Under Miss. Code Ann. § 63-17-159(2), Plaintiff is entitled to, at Plaintiff’s election, a replacement vehicle of comparable value or a refund of the full contract price including collateral charges, less a reasonable allowance for use.
- Defendants’ refusal to replace or repurchase the Vehicle constitutes a violation of the Act.
COUNT II
Breach of Express Warranty
(Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-313)
- Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1–21.
- The Warranty constituted an express warranty that the Vehicle would be free from defects during the warranty period.
- The Vehicle’s Nonconformities constitute breaches of the express warranty.
- Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount not less than the purchase price of the Vehicle, plus incidental and consequential damages.
COUNT III
Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability
(Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-314)
- Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1–25.
- Defendants, as merchants of motor vehicles, impliedly warranted that the Vehicle was merchantable and fit for ordinary use.
- Due to the persistent Nonconformities, the Vehicle is not fit for ordinary driving purposes, thereby breaching the implied warranty of merchantability.
- Plaintiff has sustained damages as a direct and proximate result.
[// GUIDANCE: Add additional counts—e.g., Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act—if strategically advantageous and jurisdictionally permissible.]
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendants as follows:
A. Ordering Manufacturer to, at Plaintiff’s option, (i) replace the Vehicle with a new comparable vehicle OR (ii) repurchase the Vehicle for the full contract price, including all collateral charges, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 63-17-159(2);
B. Awarding incidental and consequential damages as allowed by law;
C. Awarding reasonable attorney’s fees and all litigation costs pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 63-17-159(4);
D. Awarding pre- and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate;
E. Granting such other and further relief, including injunctive relief, as the Court deems just and proper.
VII. JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Miss. Const. art. 3, § 31 and Miss. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
VIII. CERTIFICATION & VERIFICATION
Rule 11 Certification
I, the undersigned counsel, certify that to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry, this Complaint is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and is not interposed for any improper purpose.
[ATTORNEY NAME]
MS Bar No. [_]
Date: __
Plaintiff Verification
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
COUNTY OF [___]
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared [PLAINTIFF NAME], who, being duly sworn, states under penalty of perjury that the factual allegations contained in this Complaint are true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge and belief.
[PLAINTIFF NAME]
Subscribed and sworn before me this _ day of _, 20___.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires: _____
IX. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this _ day of _, 20___, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint to be served via [method—e.g., certified mail, return receipt requested] upon:
[Defense Counsel / Registered Agent Information]
[ATTORNEY NAME]
SIGNATURE BLOCK FOR FILING COUNSEL
Respectfully submitted,
[LAW FIRM NAME]
By: _____
[ATTORNEY NAME], MS Bar No. [__]
[Street Address]
[City], Mississippi [ZIP]
Telephone: [--_]
Email: [_]
Counsel for Plaintiff
[// GUIDANCE:
1. Attach all required exhibits (purchase contract, repair invoices, IDSP correspondence).
2. Confirm compliance with any local rule requiring a civil cover sheet.
3. Adapt service method to electronic filing system if available.
4. Review the MVWEA one-year limitations period (Miss. Code Ann. § 63-17-159(4)).
5. Consider including a Rule 4(c)(5) summons and proposed order if the court so requires.]