IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE [___] JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
[___] COUNTY, STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
[PLAINTIFF NAME],
Plaintiff,
v. Civil No. [______]
[DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER NAME],
and DOES 1–10, inclusive,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF SOUTH DAKOTA LEMON LAW
(S.D. Codified Laws §§ 32-6B-79 – 32-6B-85), MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT
(15 U.S.C. §§ 2301 et seq.), AND RELATED RELIEF;
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
[// GUIDANCE: Delete “Does 1–10” or adjust according to local pleading practice. South Dakota allows fictitious defendants where identity presently unknown (see SDCL § 15-6-15(c)).]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Preliminary Statement
- Parties
- Jurisdiction & Venue
- Statutory Framework & Defined Terms
- Factual Allegations
- Counts / Causes of Action
• Count I – South Dakota New Motor Vehicle Warranty Law
• Count II – Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
• Count III – Breach of Express & Implied Warranties (UCC Art. 2) - Prayer for Relief
- Demand for Jury Trial
- Verification
- Signature Block
- Exhibit Index
1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.1 Plaintiff seeks statutory remedies, including vehicle replacement, refund of the purchase price (subject to reasonable offset for use under SDCL § 32-6B-81(3)), incidental and consequential damages, costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees, arising from Defendants’ failure to conform a new motor vehicle to applicable express warranties.
1.2 This action is filed pursuant to:
a. South Dakota’s New Motor Vehicle Warranty Law, SDCL §§ 32-6B-79 – 32-6B-85 (“South Dakota Lemon Law”);
b. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty—Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301 et seq.; and
c. Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as adopted in South Dakota (SDCL ch. 57A-2).
2. PARTIES
2.1 Plaintiff [NAME] (“Plaintiff”) is an adult resident of [COUNTY], State of South Dakota.
2.2 Defendant [MANUFACTURER LEGAL NAME] (“Manufacturer”) is a [corporation/LLC/etc.] organized under the laws of [STATE] with its principal place of business at [ADDRESS] and is authorized to transact, and does transact, business in South Dakota.
2.3 Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants DOES 1–10 are individuals or entities involved in the design, manufacture, distribution, sale, servicing, or warranty administration of the Subject Vehicle (defined below), whose true names and capacities are presently unknown. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint when their identities have been ascertained.
3. JURISDICTION & VENUE
3.1 This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to SDCL § 16-6-12 and constitutional grant.
3.2 Venue is proper in this County under SDCL § 15-5-6 because the transactions at issue occurred here, Plaintiff resides here, and Defendants conduct business here.
3.3 To the extent this Complaint pleads federal claims, federal jurisdiction is concurrent (15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1)(A)); Plaintiff elects the state forum as permitted by statute and by the forum-selection directive in the governing warranty documents.
4. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK & DEFINED TERMS
4.1 “Subject Vehicle” means the [YEAR] [MAKE] [MODEL], Vehicle Identification Number [VIN], purchased by Plaintiff on [DATE] from [DEALER NAME].
4.2 Pursuant to SDCL § 32-6B-79:
a. “Consumer” means the purchaser, transferee during warranty period, or any person entitled to enforce the warranty. Plaintiff is a Consumer.
b. “Nonconformity” means any condition or defect that substantially impairs the use, market value, or safety of the motor vehicle.
c. “Manufacturer’s Express Warranty” refers collectively to Defendants’ written warranties covering the Subject Vehicle for [TERM / MILES].
4.3 Under SDCL § 32-6B-81, if Manufacturer, its agent, or authorized dealer fails to conform the vehicle to warranty after a reasonable number of attempts, Manufacturer must replace the vehicle or refund the purchase price, less a reasonable offset for use.
4.4 Arbitration Requirements: SDCL § 32-6B-85 authorizes a manufacturer to require a consumer to resort to an “informal dispute settlement procedure” certified by the attorney general in compliance with 16 C.F.R. Part 703. Manufacturer’s written warranty purports to mandate such arbitration. Plaintiff has [participated in / provided written notice of intent to participate in / been denied access to] the procedure, satisfying all statutory prerequisites.
[// GUIDANCE: Customize 4.4 to reflect client’s actual arbitration posture; attach proof as Exhibit C.]
5. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
5.1 On [DATE], Plaintiff purchased the Subject Vehicle for a total consideration of $[_], financed in part under Retail Installment Contract No. [_] (Exhibit A).
5.2 The Subject Vehicle has manifested the following Nonconformities, among others:
a. [Engine stalls and loss of power];
b. [Repeated transmission hesitation];
c. [Electrical system failures causing dashboard warning lights];
d. [Any safety-related recall not timely remedied].
5.3 Plaintiff presented the Subject Vehicle for repair on at least [FOUR] separate occasions within the earlier of (a) twelve months after delivery or (b) twelve thousand miles of operation, satisfying the “reasonable number of attempts” standard under SDCL § 32-6B-80(2). A detailed chronology of repair orders is attached as Exhibit B.
5.4 Despite these repair attempts, the Nonconformities persist and substantially impair the Subject Vehicle’s use, value, and safety.
5.5 Plaintiff provided Manufacturer with direct written notice under SDCL § 32-6B-81(2) on [DATE] (Exhibit D); Manufacturer failed to provide a timely cure or replacement.
5.6 Plaintiff has suffered economic damages (purchase price, finance charges, sales tax, insurance premiums) and incidental/consequential damages (rental vehicles, towing, loss of use).
6. COUNTS / CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
Violation of South Dakota New Motor Vehicle Warranty Law
(SDCL §§ 32-6B-79 – 32-6B-85)
6.1 Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 1–5.
6.2 Defendants issued express warranties covering the Subject Vehicle and are “manufacturers” under SDCL § 32-6B-79(3).
6.3 A “reasonable number of repair attempts” have been undertaken to correct Nonconformities as defined by statute.
6.4 Defendants failed to conform the Subject Vehicle to the express warranty, thereby obligating replacement or refund.
6.5 Pursuant to SDCL § 32-6B-81, Plaintiff is entitled to:
a. Replacement of the Subject Vehicle with a comparable new motor vehicle — or —
b. Refund of the full purchase price, less an offset calculated by miles driven ÷ 120,000,
together with reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest.
COUNT II
Violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
(15 U.S.C. §§ 2301 et seq.)
6.6 Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 1–6.5.
6.7 The Subject Vehicle is a “consumer product” sold with a “written warranty.” Defendants’ breach of that warranty constitutes violation of 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d).
6.8 Plaintiff seeks all remedies allowed, including costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
COUNT III
Breach of Express and Implied Warranties
(S.D. U.C.C. §§ 57A-2-313, 57A-2-314, 57A-2-315)
6.9 Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 1–6.8.
6.10 Defendants expressly warranted that the Subject Vehicle would be free from defects and fit for ordinary purpose.
6.11 Defendants breached these warranties.
6.12 Plaintiff has provided timely notice pursuant to SDCL § 57A-2-607(3)(a) and suffered damages in an amount to be proved at trial.
7. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:
A. Injunctive relief ordering Manufacturer to replace the Subject Vehicle with a new, comparable vehicle within 30 days, or, in the alternative, rescission and refund of the purchase price, finance charges, taxes, and fees;
B. Incidental and consequential damages, including but not limited to towing, rental, and out-of-pocket expenses;
C. Statutory attorneys’ fees and costs under SDCL § 32-6B-85 and 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(2);
D. Pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;
E. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
8. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right.
[// GUIDANCE: If client prefers bench trial, delete this section; South Dakota Constitution Art. VI §6 preserves the right.]
9. VERIFICATION
I, [PLAINTIFF NAME], verify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of South Dakota that the foregoing allegations are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
Date: __ ______
[PLAINTIFF NAME]
10. SIGNATURE BLOCK
Respectfully submitted,
[LAW FIRM NAME]
By: ______
[ATTORNEY NAME], SD Bar No. [____]
[Address]
[City, State, Zip]
[Telephone]
[Email]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
11. EXHIBIT INDEX
Exhibit A – Retail Installment/Purchase Agreement
Exhibit B – Repair Orders & Service History
Exhibit C – Arbitration Program Documentation / Decision (if any)
Exhibit D – Statutory Notice Letter to Manufacturer
[// GUIDANCE: Attach exhibits in chronological order and Bates-stamp for clarity.]
END OF TEMPLATE
[// GUIDANCE:
1. Review local rules for formatting (e.g., font, margins, cover sheets).
2. Confirm the correct judicial circuit and county before filing.
3. Serve a courtesy copy on the South Dakota Attorney General if requested under SDCL § 37-24-29 (consumer protection notification).
4. Verify compliance with any manufacturer-sponsored arbitration requirement to avoid a dismissal or stay.
5. If damages sought exceed vehicle value, re-evaluate “liability cap” metadata; South Dakota Lemon Law generally limits remedy to replacement or refund.
]