Lemon Law Complaint - New Mexico

NEW MEXICO MOTOR VEHICLE QUALITY ASSURANCE ACT COMPLAINT

1. CAPTION

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

[NUMBER] JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

[COUNTY] COUNTY

Case No. [________________]

COMPLAINT UNDER THE MOTOR VEHICLE QUALITY ASSURANCE ACT

Plaintiff alleges:

2. PARTIES, COURT, AND VEHICLE

1. Plaintiff [NAME] resides at [ADDRESS] in [COUNTY, NEW MEXICO].

2. Plaintiff is a “consumer” under NMSA 1978, Section 57-16A-2(C) because Plaintiff is the [NON-RESALE PURCHASER / QUALIFYING WARRANTY TRANSFEREE / OTHER PERSON ENTITLED BY THE WARRANTY TO ENFORCE IT] of the Vehicle and uses it normally for personal, family, or household purposes.

3. Defendant [NAME] manufactures, assembles, imports, or distributes motor vehicles as a regular business and may be served through [AGENT AND ADDRESS]. Section 57-16A-2(E).

4. On [DATE], Plaintiff purchased a new [AUTOMOBILE / PICKUP TRUCK / MOTORCYCLE / VAN], year [YEAR], make [MAKE], model [MODEL], VIN [VIN] (the “Vehicle”).

5. The Vehicle is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, was sold and registered in New Mexico, and has a gross vehicle weight below 10,000 pounds. Section 57-16A-2(F).

6. The purchase, title, registration, weight, and use documents are attached as Exhibit A. Defendant's express warranty is attached as Exhibit B.

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

3. TIMELY REPORT AND REPAIR DUTY

8. Original delivery occurred on [DATE].

9. Defendant's applicable express-warranty term ended on [DATE].

10. The earlier of the express-warranty expiration and the first anniversary of original delivery was [DATE].

11. Plaintiff first reported the claimed nonconformity to Defendant, its agent, or its authorized dealer on [DATE], before that earlier date. NMSA 1978, Section 57-16A-3(A).

12. The claimed nonconformity is [DESCRIBE PRECISELY].

13. Defendant, its agent, or its authorized dealer was required to make the repairs necessary to conform the Vehicle to the applicable express warranties.

4. REPAIR HISTORY AND SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT

14. The repair history is:

15. The same uncorrected nonconformity continues to exist as follows: [DETAILS].

16. The nonconformity substantially impairs both the Vehicle's use and its market value to Plaintiff. Section 57-16A-3(B).

17. The supporting repair orders, communications, day calculation, current-condition evidence, and market-value evidence are attached as Exhibit C.

5. PRESUMPTION, WRITTEN NOTICE, AND CURE OPPORTUNITY

18. Select each supported presumption under NMSA 1978, Section 57-16A-3(C), measured within the earlier of the express-warranty term or one year after original delivery:

• ☐ Four repairs. The same uncorrected nonconformity was subject to repair four or more times and continues to exist.
• ☐ Thirty business days. The Vehicle was in the possession of Defendant, its agent, or its authorized dealer for repair for at least 30 cumulative business days, excluding downtime for manufacturer-prescribed routine maintenance.

19. Any extension is limited to time when repair services were unavailable because of war, invasion, strike, fire, flood, or other natural disaster. The calculation is [DETAILS / NONE].

20. Before invoking the presumption, Plaintiff sent Defendant direct written notification of the claim on [DATE] and gave Defendant an opportunity to cure. The notice and delivery proof are attached as Exhibit D.

21. Defendant's cure opportunity was [DESCRIBE]. Section 57-16A-3(C) sets no fixed cure-day period.

22. The nonconformity remained after that opportunity.

6. INFORMAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT

23. Select the applicable route under NMSA 1978, Section 57-16A-6:

• ☐ Defendant did not establish or participate in a fair and impartial informal dispute settlement procedure substantially complying with 16 C.F.R. Part 703.
• ☐ Defendant had such a procedure, and Plaintiff first resorted to it on [DATE]. The procedure materials, submission, and final panel action are attached as Exhibit E.

24. The final panel action, if any, occurred on [DATE / NOT APPLICABLE].

7. FILING DEADLINE

25. Under NMSA 1978, Section 57-16A-8, this action had to be commenced by the later of:

26. Plaintiff commenced this action by the later deadline.

8. STATUTORY REMEDY

27. After a reasonable number of attempts, Defendant, its agent, or its authorized dealer was unable to conform the Vehicle to the applicable express warranty by correcting the defect or condition that substantially impairs both use and market value.

28. Under NMSA 1978, Section 57-16A-3(B), Defendant must provide one of two alternatives: a comparable motor vehicle, or acceptance of the Vehicle's return and payment of the statutory refund.

29. Defendant has provided neither alternative.

30. A “comparable motor vehicle” is an identical or reasonably equivalent motor vehicle. Section 57-16A-2(B).

31. If Defendant provides a refund, the calculation is:

32. The use allowance is the amount directly attributable to Plaintiff's use before the first report of the nonconformity and during later periods when the Vehicle was not out of service by reason of repair. Section 57-16A-3(B) prescribes no mileage divisor.

33. The use allowance applies to either a replacement or a refund.

34. A refund must be paid to Plaintiff and any lienholder as their interests appear.

9. AFFIRMATIVE-DEFENSE FACTS

35. The nonconformity substantially impairs both use and market value.

36. The nonconformity did not result from abuse, neglect, or unauthorized modification or alteration.

37. Plaintiff filed this claim in good faith. NMSA 1978, Section 57-16A-4.

10. COUNT I — MOTOR VEHICLE QUALITY ASSURANCE ACT

38. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 37, with unused alternatives deleted.

39. Plaintiff is a consumer, Defendant is the manufacturer, and the Vehicle is covered by Section 57-16A-2.

40. Plaintiff timely reported the nonconformity, allowed a reasonable number of attempts, provided direct written notice and a cure opportunity, and first resorted to any qualifying informal procedure.

41. Defendant violated Section 57-16A-3 by failing to conform the Vehicle and failing to provide a comparable replacement or statutory refund.

42. Plaintiff seeks relief under this Act and acknowledges that Section 57-16A-5 forecloses the Uniform Commercial Code remedies in Sections 55-2-602 through 55-2-608 NMSA 1978.

43. A prevailing consumer is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and court costs under Section 57-16A-9.

11. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff requests judgment:

1. Determining that Defendant violated the Motor Vehicle Quality Assurance Act;
2. Ordering Defendant to provide a comparable motor vehicle or accept return and pay the statutory refund under Section 57-16A-3(B);
3. Determining the correct use allowance and consumer/lienholder allocation;
4. Awarding reasonable attorney fees and court costs under Section 57-16A-9; and
5. Granting any further relief authorized by the pleaded sections and proved in this action.

12. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

13. SIGNATURE BLOCK

Dated: [DATE]

Respectfully submitted,

[ATTORNEY NAME], New Mexico Bar No. [NUMBER]

[FIRM]

[ADDRESS]

[PHONE]

[EMAIL]

Attorney for Plaintiff

14. EXHIBIT CHECKLIST

• ☐ Exhibit A — Purchase, original-delivery, title, registration, weight, use, and lien documents
• ☐ Exhibit B — Express warranty
• ☐ Exhibit C — Repair orders, business-day calculation, continuing-defect evidence, and use/market-value impairment evidence
• ☐ Exhibit D — Direct written manufacturer notice, delivery proof, and cure opportunity
• ☐ Exhibit E — Qualifying informal-procedure materials, submission, and final panel action, if applicable
• ☐ Exhibit F — Purchase price, collateral charges, use periods, allowance, and lienholder calculation
• ☐ Exhibit G — Original-delivery and filing-deadline calculation

15. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• 2025 New Mexico Statutes — Chapter 57, Article 16A
• New Mexico Legislature — HB 189 (2022), proposed expansion that did not become law