IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [COUNTY] COUNTY
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
[PLAINTIFF NAME],
Plaintiff,
v.
[DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER NAME], a [state of organization] corporation, and
[DEFENDANT DEALER NAME], a [state of organization] corporation,
Defendants.
Civil No. _____
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF NORTH DAKOTA LEMON LAW,
MAGNUSON–MOSS WARRANTY ACT, AND RELATED CLAIMS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
[// GUIDANCE: Insert the court-assigned civil number after filing.]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Document Header & Preliminary Allegations
- Definitions
- Jurisdiction and Venue
- Parties
- Operative Facts
- Statutory Framework
- Causes of Action
- Count I Violation of N.D. Motor Vehicle Warranties (§ 51-07-16 et seq.)
- Count II Breach of Express & Implied Warranties (U.C.C.)
- Count III Violation of Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. § 2310) - Default, Remedies & Damages
- Dispute Resolution Allegations
- Prayer for Relief
- Jury Demand
- Verification & Signature Block
1. DOCUMENT HEADER & PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS
1.1 Plaintiff brings this action seeking statutory and equitable relief arising from persistent nonconformities in the motor vehicle identified below (the “Vehicle”), despite a reasonable number of repair attempts as required by North Dakota’s Motor Vehicle Warranties statute, N.D. Cent. Code §§ 51-07-16 to 51-07-22 (the “Lemon Law”).
1.2 All conditions precedent, including resort to any qualifying informal dispute settlement procedure under N.D. Cent. Code § 51-07-19(3) and 16 C.F.R. Part 703, have been satisfied, waived, or otherwise excused.
2. DEFINITIONS
For clarity, the following capitalized terms have the meanings set forth below.
“Dealer” means Defendant [DEFENDANT DEALER NAME] or any successor entity.
“Manufacturer” means Defendant [DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER NAME] or any successor entity.
“Motor Vehicle” or “Vehicle” means the [YEAR, MAKE, MODEL], VIN [VIN], purchased by Plaintiff on [DATE OF PURCHASE].
“Nonconformity” means any defect or condition that substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of the Vehicle.
“Reasonable Number of Repair Attempts” means (i) four or more attempts for the same Nonconformity, or (ii) the Vehicle is out of service for repair for a cumulative total of 30 or more calendar days, as provided in N.D. Cent. Code § 51-07-18.
[// GUIDANCE: Add or delete defined terms to suit the fact pattern.]
3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.1 This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under N.D. Const. art. VI § 8 and N.D. Cent. Code § 27-05-06 because the amount in controversy does not exceed the district court’s jurisdictional minimums and the Lemon Law confers a private right of action.
3.2 Venue is proper in this County under N.D. Cent. Code § 28-04-05(1) because Defendants do business here and the transactions and events giving rise to these claims occurred here.
3.3 Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction under N.D. Cent. Code § 28-04-02 and constitutional due-process principles because they transact substantial business in North Dakota and purposefully availed themselves of its markets.
4. PARTIES
4.1 Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] is an individual resident of [COUNTY] County, North Dakota, and the purchaser of the Vehicle.
4.2 Defendant [DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER NAME] is a [STATE] corporation with its principal place of business at [ADDRESS] and is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of motor vehicles nationwide, including in North Dakota.
4.3 Defendant [DEFENDANT DEALER NAME] is a licensed motor-vehicle dealer located at [ADDRESS], authorized to sell and service Manufacturer’s vehicles in North Dakota.
5. OPERATIVE FACTS
5.1 On [DATE], Plaintiff purchased the Vehicle from Dealer for the cash price of $[AMOUNT], plus taxes and fees, for personal, family, or household use.
5.2 The Vehicle was accompanied by Manufacturer’s written new-vehicle limited warranty for [TERM/MILEAGE].
5.3 Beginning on or about [DATE], Plaintiff experienced recurring Nonconformities, including but not limited to:
(a) [DESCRIPTION 1];
(b) [DESCRIPTION 2]; and
(c) [DESCRIPTION 3].
5.4 Plaintiff presented the Vehicle to Dealer for warranty repair on at least [NUMBER] separate occasions between [DATES], during which the Vehicle was out of service for an aggregate of [DAYS] days. Repair Orders are attached as Exhibit A.
5.5 Despite these attempts, the Nonconformities persist, substantially impair the Vehicle, and have not been corrected.
5.6 On [DATE], Plaintiff provided written notice of the defects and a final opportunity to cure as required by N.D. Cent. Code § 51-07-19(1). Defendants failed to provide a conforming vehicle or a refund within the statutory timeframe.
5.7 [If applicable] Plaintiff submitted the dispute to Manufacturer’s informal dispute settlement procedure on [DATE] and received an unfavorable decision on [DATE]. All statutory waiting periods have expired.
6. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
6.1 North Dakota’s Lemon Law (N.D. Cent. Code §§ 51-07-16 to 51-07-22) affords a consumer the right to vehicle replacement or refund where (a) a nonconformity exists, (b) a reasonable number of repair attempts fail, and (c) statutory notice is provided.
6.2 Under § 51-07-19(2), the Manufacturer must, at the consumer’s election, replace the Vehicle with a comparable new vehicle or refund the full purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for prior use.
6.3 Attorney’s fees and costs are recoverable to a prevailing consumer under § 51-07-22.
7. CAUSES OF ACTION
Count I – Violation of N.D. Cent. Code §§ 51-07-16 to 51-07-22
7.1 Plaintiff realleges ¶¶ 1–6.3.
7.2 The Vehicle contains Nonconformities covered by the warranty.
7.3 Plaintiff afforded Defendants a Reasonable Number of Repair Attempts.
7.4 Defendants failed/refused to replace or refund as mandated by § 51-07-19.
7.5 Plaintiff suffered damages equal to the purchase price, incidental expenses, and statutory attorney’s fees.
Count II – Breach of Express and Implied Warranties (U.C.C. Art. 2)
7.6 Defendants expressly warranted the Vehicle would be free from defects.
7.7 The Vehicle’s Nonconformities breached that warranty and the implied warranty of merchantability.
7.8 Plaintiff justifiably revoked acceptance and seeks revocation remedies under N.D. Cent. Code § 41-02-71 (U.C.C. § 2-711).
Count III – Violation of Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2310
7.9 Counts I and II constitute breaches of written and implied warranties as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 2301.
7.10 The amount in controversy exceeds $50,000 or the action is otherwise properly brought under 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3).
7.11 Plaintiff is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
8. DEFAULT, REMEDIES & DAMAGES
8.1 Events of Default: Defendants’ failure to (a) repair the Vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts and (b) provide the replacement/refund remedy within the statutory period.
8.2 Remedies Sought:
(a) Replacement of the Vehicle with a new, comparable vehicle, or, in the alternative, refund of the full purchase price less statutory offset;
(b) Incidental and consequential damages under N.D. Cent. Code §§ 51-07-19(2) and 41-02-95;
(c) Attorney’s fees, expert fees, and costs pursuant to N.D. Cent. Code § 51-07-22 and 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(2);
(d) Pre- and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; and
(e) Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
8.3 Liability Cap: Plaintiff acknowledges that monetary recovery cannot exceed the Vehicle’s purchase price plus incidental damages, absent proof of bad-faith non-compliance.
[// GUIDANCE: Adjust ¶ 8.3 if seeking punitive damages under other counts.]
9. DISPUTE RESOLUTION ALLEGATIONS
9.1 Governing Law: North Dakota law applies under N.D. Cent. Code § 51-07-21.
9.2 Forum Selection: The parties are properly before this North Dakota district court; no contractual forum-selection clause to the contrary applies.
9.3 Arbitration/Informal Dispute Resolution: Plaintiff has satisfied any prerequisite informal dispute settlement requirement under § 51-07-19(3) and 16 C.F.R. Part 703, or, if such program is non-compliant, no arbitration requirement bars this action.
9.4 Jury Right: Plaintiff invokes the constitutional right to a trial by jury on all triable issues.
10. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for:
A. Replacement of the Vehicle or, at Plaintiff’s election, a refund of the purchase price, less the statutory use allowance;
B. Incidental and consequential damages proved at trial;
C. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit;
D. Pre- and post-judgment interest; and
E. All other relief the Court deems equitable and just.
11. JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
12. VERIFICATION & SIGNATURE BLOCK
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of North Dakota that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: _____
[PLAINTIFF NAME]
Respectfully submitted,
[ATTORNEY NAME] (ND Bar No. _____)
[LAW FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS] | [PHONE] | [EMAIL]
Counsel for Plaintiff
[// GUIDANCE: Attach notarization or additional verification if local rules require.]
[// GUIDANCE:
1. Attach Exhibits A (Repair Orders), B (Purchase Agreement), and any decision from an informal dispute settlement program.
2. Double-check county-specific civil-cover-sheet and ADR acknowledgment requirements before filing.
3. Serve the Manufacturer’s registered agent and the Dealer pursuant to N.D. R. Civ. P. 4.
4. Consider adding a claim for violation of the North Dakota Consumer Fraud Act if facts justify.]
This template incorporates North Dakota’s statutory prerequisites, preserves all available remedies, and is formatted for immediate customization and filing in a North Dakota district court.