EYAL VOLKMAR Et Al v. BRP USA INC Complaint

Case 2:10-cv-08253-DDP -MAN Document 1 Filed 11/01/10 Page 1 of 47 Page ID #:5
c:.
1 Friedrich W. Seitz (SBN 51536) !' ~, "'r~
fseitz murchisonlaw.com
2Gina E. c B 17 5 Y..-
goch@murc isonlaw.com """~l .
3 Anastasia K. Mazzella (SBN 245201)

amazzella~murchisonlaw.com '1"1
4 MURCHIS N & CUMMING, LLP .,
801 South Grand A venue, Ninth Floor C¡J
5 Los Angeie~ California 90017-4613 i.)

Telephone: 213) 623-7400 . i
6 Facsimile: ( 13) 623-6336

7 Attorneys for Defendant, BRP US INC.,
erroneously sued and served as BRP USA,
8 INC.
9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
.Kl
12
'\/'
13 EY AL VOLKMAR and CARLOS CASE NO.
BERTRAND, on behalf of themselves
14 and all others similarly situated, NOTICE TO UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT CLERK OF
15 Plaintiffs, REMOVAL OF ACTION; DEMAND
FOR JURY TRIAL
16 vs. (28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)J
17 BRP USA, INC., (Diversity)
18 Defendant.
fFiled
nterested
concurrently
Parties and
with
Certificate
Notice ofof
19 ServiceJ
20
21 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant BRP US, INC., erroneously sued and
22 served as BRP USA, INC. (hereinafter referred to as "BRP"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§
23 1441 and 1446, files this Notice of Removal (hereinafter "Notice") of this action from
24 the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United
25 States District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles Division. The
26 grounds for removal are as follows:
27 / / /
28 / / /
1
1 I. INTRODUCTION
and CARLOS BERTRAND, on behalf of themselves,
2 1. EYAL VOLKMAR
3 and all others similarly situated (hereinafter referred as "Plaintiffs"), commenced this
4 breach of warranty and false advertising action in the Superior Court of the State of
5 California, County of Los Angeles, entitled EY AL VOLKMAR and CARLOS
6 BERTRAND, on behalf of
themselves, and all others similarly situated, v. BRP USA,
7 INC., Case No. BC 445824, on September 20, 2010. Plaintiffs allege that they
8 purchased boats manufactured, advertised, marketed, and sold by defendant BRP that
9 contained inherent defects. Plaintiffs claim BRP denied full warranty coverage for the
10 cost of parts and labor to repair damage caused by the defects and that BRP falsely
11 advertised and marketed the boats as being free from defects. Plaintiffs seek legal and
12 equitable relief, including damages, specific performance, rescission, attorneys' fees,
13 costs of suit, and all other relief as appropriate. A true and correct copy of the Service of
14 Process Transmittal, Summons, and Complaint are attached collectively hereto and
15 incorporated by reference as Exhibit A. The Notice of Order and Order deeming the
16 state court action complex are attached collectively hereto as Exhibit B.

service
17 2. Under 28 U.S.C. 1446, a defendant has thirty days from the date of
18 to file removal papers. Plaintiffs personally served BRP's registered agent with a copy
19 of the Summons and the Complaint on October 1, 2010. (See Service of Process
20 Transmittal, Ex. A.) Based on this service date, the thirty-day window for removal
21 expired on October 31,2010, which is a Sunday. FRCP 6 states that when the last day of
22 a specified time period falls on a weekend, the party has until the end of the following
23 business day to file. Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, this Notice of
24 Removal is timely filed.

25 3. As more fully set forth below, this is a civil action over which this Court has
26 original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332( d)(2), and this action is removable under 28
27 U.S.C. § 1441, because it is a civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the
the claims of all potential class members),
28 sum or value of$5,000,000 (aggregation of
2
1 exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action between citizens of different States.
2 Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441, the Defendant may remove this action to this
3 Court.
4 H. THIS COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

5 A. The Amount in Controversy Requirement Exceeds $5,000,000.
6 4. It is apparent from the face of the Complaint that the Plaintiffs seek
7 recovery of an amount in excess of$5,000,OOO, exclusive of costs and interest. Plaintiffs

8 filed this class action on behalf of themselves as individuals and similarly situated
9 individuals in the United States who purchased the subject boats in the State of
10 California. (Complaint, ~ 41, Ex. A.) The Complaint alleges plaintiffs and similarly
11 situated consumers have had to bear the risk and expense of fixing the alleged defects.
12 (Complaint, ~~ 37, 40, 49.) Plaintiffs seek legal and equitable relief, including actual
13 damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble damages, disgorgement, restitution,
14 attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and other such relief as provided by the various statutes
15 cited in the Complaint. (Complaint, Prayer for Relief, p. 19-20, Ex. A.) Plaintiffs also
16 seek an order requiring BRP to provide extended warranty coverage to ensure the free
17 replacement of ceramic washers that fail as a result of normal operating conditions.
18 (Complaint, Prayer for Relief, p. 19, Ex. A.)
19 5. Although Plaintiffs allege that no individual Plaintiff or class member's
20 claims exceed $75,000,28 USC § 1332(d)(6) provides that the $5 million

jurisdictional
21 minimum for class actions may be based on aggregation of the claims of all potential
22 class members. Furthermore, the amount in controversy may be based either on the
23 aggregate value of
providing
the class members' claims or on the costs to defendants of
24 whatever equitable relief is sought. Berry v. American Express Pub. Corp., 381
25 F.Supp.2d i 118, 1124 (CaL. C.D., 2005).

26 6. In this case, Plaintiffs acknowledge that the members of
the putative class
27 are so numerous that joinder is "impossible." (Complaint, ~~ 28,41,44, Ex. A.) Given
28 the potentially large class and the types of compensatory and equitable relief sought by
3
1 the individual Plaintiffs and class members, the amount in controversy clearly meets the
2 $5 million jurisdictional minimum. Furthermore, nowhere in the Complaint do the
3 Plaintiffs limit the amount in controversy to less than $5,000,000. See Exhibit A.
4 7. The Defendant has, therefore, met its burden of showing a reasonable
5 probability that the amount in controversy satisfies the federal

jurisdictional amount. See
6 Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676,683 (9th Cir. 2006).
7 B. Complete Diversity of Citizenship Exists.
8 8. There is complete diversity of citizenship between the Plaintiffs and the
9 Defendant in this action. Diversity in a class action is established when "any member of
10 a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant." 28 U.S.C. §
11 1332(d)(2)(A).
12 9. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff
Volkmar is and at all times relevant to
13 this action was a citizen of

the State ofCalifomia. Plaintiff Bertrand is and at all times
14 relevant to this action was a citizen of

the State of Texas. (Complaint, irir 24-25, Ex. A.)
15 10. Plaintiffs correctly allege that Defendant, BRP US Inc., is a Delaware

16 corporation with its principal place of
business located in Wisconsin. (Complaint, ir 26,
17 Ex. A.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), "a corporation shall be deemed to be a

18 citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its
19 principal place of business." 28 U.S.C. § 1332( c)(1). Thus, BRP is deemed to be a citizen
20 of the State of Delaware and the State of Wisconsin - not the State of California or the
21 State of Texas.
22 11. There are no other named defendants in this action. The "DOE" defendants
23 are wholly fictitious and sham parties against whom no relief is, or could be, sought in
24 this action. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), this Court should disregard the citizenship
25 of any defendant sued under this fictitious name. Accordingly, it is not necessary that
26 any parties join in this Notice of
Removal of Action.
27 12. Based on the foregoing, this case should be removed to the United States
28 District Court for the Central District of

California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and
4
1 1441, because: (1) the Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of CalifOlnia and the State of
2 Texas; (2) BRP is not a citizen of
the State of Texas; and (3)
California or the State of
3 the amount in controversy, more likely than not, satisfies the $5,000,000 jurisdictional
4 requirement, exclusive of costs and interest.
5 III. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL ARE SATISFIED

6 13. As noted previously, this Notice of Removal is timely according to 28
7 U.S.C. § 1446(b) and FRCP 6. See e.g., Williams v. Leonard, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
8 772 (N.D. CaL. Jan. 13,2003) (finding that where the thirty-day removal period expired
9 on a Saturday, defendant had until Monday to file).
10 14. The Defendant, in good faith, believes that the amount in controversy
11 exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of costs and interest, and complete diversity of citizenship
12 exists.
13 15. The United States District Court for the Central District of California
14 embraces the county in which the state court action is now pending. Therefore, this
15 action is properly removed to the Central District of
California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
16 93(a)(1).
17 16. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(d), the Defendant is filing written notice of
18 this removal to all adverse parties and will file a copy of
the notice with the clerk ofthe
19 State court in which this action is currently pending.

20 17. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), true and correct copies of process,
21 pleadings and orders served by or upon BRP in the state court action are attached as
22 Exhibits A and B, and generally as "remainder of state court action."
23 WHEREFORE, the defendant, BRP US Inc., respectfully removes this action from
24 the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United
25 States District Court for the Central District of

California pursuantto 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332,
26 1441, and 1446.
27 / / /
28 / / /
5
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, defendant BRP US INC. hereby
3 demands trial by jury in this action.
4 DATED: November 1,2010 MURCHISON & CUMMING, LLP
5
6
By: Q,.~
Friedri . W. Seitz
GinaE.Och
7 Anastasia K. Mazzella
Attorneys for Defendant, BRP US INC.,
8 erroneously sued and served as BRP USA,
INC.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
EXHIBIT A
tvl'~
1 t'Sì,lJ
--~--_.- .. . ,,"-" 'iC~~:~i~~',¡i:j' '. . ....... .... .....~:~:~:~~:.:.~:::. ...-......... .~~~~~~~1~~~~~

NOTICE TO DE'7ENOANT: SRI? USA, INC.
(AVISO AI., OEMANDADO): !~ONFORMEÒ COpy
OF ORIGINAL FILED
¡..O$ Ange:iles Superior Court
SEP 202010
. . '. J hn ~' ;¡¡¡ OIftceriClom
YOU ARE l3eING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: ~YAIi VotKMAR and CARLOS r. hi ;itøn-:i:i.- _ Daputy
(LO Es;A DEMANlJANIJO EL DEMANDANre.): BER'.l"Rt-NO, on behalf "DAWN DEÂ

of themselve~ anö all others similarly si tuated .
. NOl'lCet You nQYe t:HlÐnllUOO. The court mw ditdoo egalnot you willioul your biilno hii"rd unless you respond wllhln an days. Raad tho h'lformatkin
below,
. You have 30 CAI.ENDAR OAYS oftOl' this summonG iinellegal papets !INi sÐrirod on yoiiio rile a wrltleri l'ßSjlOl'lse at this court ilnd have a copy
iMlNfld on lhG plalntlff, A laltar or phone ~àll will not protiict you. YoU/' written NlsponlìÐ must bø In proper legal form If you Wilnt the court to hElar your
easl!l. TheM may be a COurt form that YOtJ can USÐ.for your t'èsponee. You can find the$$ court forl'rl$ and ftll)tè Infon'rtirtloii at the California COUtW
you cannot pay tho filiiig fee, 83k
Oiilil'lll SelM1èlp Centar (www.oourtfnfo.ca.(1CII/II&fflUi/p). your county law I.ibmy. or \lii:i eQui1l'1ous.e nearest you, If
tlnl court clerk. for It feo walviirform, I(you do not file your responsr,i 01'1 UmEl, you may 10M lhe case by diifault, and yow wagEla. money. and pt\'ll)&tW
may bii tøkên INlthout fUrthèr warning fr()m the eoUlt . . .
There oro ollier legal requtremlltitø. YOII ml'ly want to call an lItlorney rtghl away. If you dO no! know an attomov. YOu may waiit to eall an attorney
relarml sarviea. If you cannot afford an attorney, YOO ó'lllY be eliglblii lor fre& II'lgal iiervice3 from £l nonpmflt mgal eørvloo$ program. You can loclitø
lheiie noriproni groupo at lii& CQl!tomla Legal ServlC&$ Wêb ßìLi) (www.l&whòipoalif'omiaorg), tiiii Cølliomle COUltll Online Self-Help Cenlor
(www.COUr1info.i:a,gov/6elHielp), or by contacting your looi:il court or county bar aiiscx;ratlofl. NOTe; Tile èOurt hIlS il stlllulcry lion for walV$d fQell and
coritlriUEI cl(m .
costs on any lIetllamanl (J.f aibllratiori áW8rd of" t 0,000 or more In a chill clltia. The oourt's lien muiit be paid bl)fore the court v¡~l dismiss tho cane.
IA IIlSOI Lo han dM'ltindadri. S¡ no responde dlmJm dl¡ 30 dftl!J, ia cort& (moot) dlJCidlr em IìU contra sin esçiicliar SIJ wrsidn. LfJ/l 18 InfDrm9C1ôn ¡¡
ntme 30 VIAS DE! CALENDARIO d98pIJ,és de que ril IlntrogUéll t11Jta cllaclön y pspefrialagBlOI; pf)fIJ proserrtaruml respuetits POIBSorl/Q on olittl
corte y naoor qus S6 entrBgUfl una QOtJÜ¡ 8/ d8mand8nl8. Uiia rmrtu 0 una IJømiicfo tef9lónlcè no iò protegan. Su rospuvslil pot O$Mto Ilene quit (lS1!t
en fonnato l&glJI corroc/o sJ tlliOO8 QUO proC&c;in su caBO 8n fa oOffe. Es poslble que hsye 1m formuJaflo flUS /.I$ftJd pooda USaf pars 8U rosp/.IfJllll.
Pwd9 fJt/Còntl'f1r øt/t08 formularios de la corti) Ý má$ InkmritIClón eri ei CDntro de Ayuda elø 10$ Corløs dè Colifomla N¡ww. ilYcorte.ea.gov), M Ie
blbJiotdè8 d& leyas de 8U cOl1dado 0 en Ja 0011(1 que Jtj Ql1006 mils CSfCII. $1 no PU6d& pagFJ,f la O,uota do presentaclOO, pJda ala80r0tørro 00 fa coria
QU& 1& dé un formii/s(f() de eXeflGiön do pBgo de cuotes. SJ no Nesant& 8U IlJtlPU8SIB (j t/&mpa, pu9d$ PØrd6f 61 CMO tJòr iliwmpRmlønto y 1& carro 1&
padffJ quHlJr $/J cw/CfO, d1Hørø y bJsflÐ8 sm mfJo edVerttNwltt. .
. Hayo/tT.).:l raqitlsitosl&gt1lflG. E;s rocomsndab/Ð que/lame fJ un 8bogado mmadlÐtaroonte. $/ no COftOOO (/ un i'i00g8d0, pU8C19 lIamør a un 8ervtcia do
ttJml$lón a ~. SI no PUOOIJ pager Ii un (jOOgado, ès posibl8 qua ewnpla con los /'flqtJJsitoli p/;lni ob/ener S8rvfcios 199818$ groWiios r:J(J lin
progrsm8 d8 !JtJrvicros 16(1818$ :sin fllies d9liicro, Piied8 flnoon/Tal' estøs grupoii .sin 11ft8$ dJ¡ /ucro 1m el sllio wi'ib ci& Cti/iIomJi¡ !.eglll Services,
(www.lliwhelpcallfomiEl.org).(j1l6ICentrodeAyud8dfJIMCrirleiiidClC8I1fcim/ø.iWwiv.aucorte.ca.goV) 0 ponIdn.aosa en corrcacto con t8 COrlll 0 aI
ooJ9glo de aboqsdos IO/jeJI38. AVISO: Por fey. la aorf@ "Me rJerocho íi roc1timar 188 oimtas y/oa oo"t08 fmmlOs per Impót'lfH' un gmva'man sobr&
culJ)qtJJl)I røcupetOOÎÔn'ds $10,000 Ó mils dø vÐkir f60ibida rtrI1dìenrø un Bouordo ø uns CQfICIJal6ti de, cilbltr$ en un aiMo 00 deracho cMI. 'lftJn& qlj(J
pa,ÇJtJf 6/ arsv8l1l8n de /9 QOrlo Em/os de aue /8 corle'Duooa d&secJ'tfJr 91 Cß$o,
The nama ana ai:!Cfre9$ of lhe court IS:
(El nombro y diroccl6n 00/1) corte IIS): ~~:c 4458'24.
LO$ Angel~$ Superior Court
111 N. Hill St..
111 N. Hill St.
Los Angeles 90012 .. .
The name, addrii¡ss, end telephone number of plaintiff's Bttomay, or plaintiff without an attorney, 1$:
(EI nombre, ItA dlrocclÓfl Y 9/ nómero d9 teltlfono dttllJPO dBfltfl, 0 de/ demandante que no Ilene abogado. es):
Graham,B.. LippSm.ith, SßN 2~ Aii . 213-S77-0211 '2l3...481-1554
Girardi I Keese ~
1126 Wilshire alvd. OAWN~ØER
L03 Angeles, CA 90017
DATE:
Føcha $ilcrettlrio
(For proolt:nllPJJfvlee of this $vmmon8, use Proof of Servioo of Summons (fonri P .010 .)
(PBra proi!bá:-de lrntroga dfi elJta citatlõn use 61 formularlo Proof of Service of SUmmons, (POS-Q10)).
" . . NOTICE ro THE PERSON SI;RVeO: You aro Gef\lOO
l6W.I ~ ,. . ....¡ ,'. -1 ~ 0 as an indMduBI defendant.
2.,. c:::i 99 the plilrwn si.ied under \he f1ctitlouli name 0Uspi;iclty):
".', .~
3. r:p on behalf nr(splldfy), iæ. p u 5 It I Y\ ( , .
: t.' '8tP'O lUfp under. (1\J cop 416.10 (corpimrtlon) 0 CCP 416.60 (Min.Of)
0' CCP 416.20 (dèfitrlct corporation) I J COP 416.70 (conservste9)
i~J CO? 4HMO (assoclation or parlnar5hlp)' 0 etp 416.00 (authorlied parson)
o olher (specify): Pii~11)( 1
4. b rsonel delive on date:
COd\i of eMI Proo4tliJl1l §5 ~, 2,W, 48il
Form At!Oj)!tit.I rill Man6altlty U~ SUMMONS
Juo:IlClal eoi.mcu or ÚaljfOMlt\
aUM-100 lFt4l\O. JUly 1,:2C09i
:I
... ,.. ..... ..... .- .~...~_.. _.....,_. ....... ......................
1 GRAHAM LIPPSl\4lTH. 'ESQ. (S.B. No. 221984) CONFORMED copy

GIRARDI & KEESE . . OF OrUGINAL FILED,
2 1126 Wilshire Blvd. i..o6 Angeles Superior Court
Lös Angeles, CA 900 i 7
3 Ph: (213) 917-0211 SEl' 20 20~O
Fax: ,(213) 471.1554
4' QffiCer/Clt:irk
BR1lTON D. MONTS (PRO HAC VICE PENDING) . Deputy

5 REA TIlER B. BRIDGERS (PRO HAC ViCE PENDING)
6
TIlE MONTS FIRM .
The Frost Be.nk Building
40 i Congress ,Avenue
1 Suite 1540 '.
Austin) TX 78701
a Ph: (512) 382-6092 .
Fax: (512) 692-2981
9
RICHARD E~ NORMAN (PRO HAC vICE PENDING)
10. R. MARTIN WEBE~ JR. (PRO HAC VICE PENDING)
CROWLEY NORMAN LLP
11 Three Rivetway, Suite 1775
Houston, TX 77056' "
12 Ph: (713)6.51~i771
Fax: (713) 651-1775
13
Attorneys for Plaintiff~ BY AL VOLKMÁR and
14 CARLOS BERTRAND) and the Class .
15
SUPERlOR COURT OF. THE STATE OF CALrFORNIA
16
FOR TIm COUNTY OF LO~ AftL~ 5 ß Z Ai'
. .
17 .1
BY At VOLKMAR and CARLOS CASE NO.

1à'
19
20
BERTRAND, ort behalf ofthem.selves and
all others similarly situated.
. Plainti:O:s,
" , CLASS ACTION
. b .. ..._ ..
. COMPLAJNT FOR:
VS. . 1. BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY
21 2. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF

BRP. USA, INC. 1VffiRCHANTABILITY '
22 ,3. DECLARATORY RELIEF
Defendant. 4. UNTRUE OR MISLEADING .
23 . ADVERTISING; CAL. BUS & PROF. CODE
§ 17500 ET SEQ.) .
24 5. UNFAIR COMPETITION; CAL. BUS &,
. ,'. PROF. CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.)

25 6. DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES IN
VIOLA nON OF THE CONSUMER LEGAL

26 REMEDIES ACT .
'7. UNJUST ENRICHNIENT
27. ~"'\:;-. ~¡r' ~n It ~¡.'t
~:~:iJ 'g' ~ "'h .l:...";\ /9\.

28 II
PtAlNTIFFS' ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

.....~.......
...- _.~ ..
1 PLAINTIFFS EY AL VOLKMAR and CARLOS BERTRAND. bring this c1aas action on

2 behalf of' themseive~ and all others similarly ~ituated agi:i.inst DEFENDANT BRP USA, INC.
3 ("Defendant" or "BRP") 'and states as follows:'
4
5 NATURE OF ACTION
.6 1. PIiúntiffs bring this acti¿n on béhalf of those who purchased new 2004-2007 4- tee
7 Series Supercharged Sea-Doo (Bombardier) person~i watercraft.
8 .2. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant BRP tested,
9 manllfactured,advertised, marketed and sold the boats that are the subj ect 0 f this action under the
10 trade name "Sea-Doo," specifically Sea-Doo~.Tec Series su~rcharged models RXP, RXT, GTX
11 and 215 Wake (the "subject models or watercraft").
12 3. . Plaintiffs are ~onned and believe and thereon al'lege that the subjectmodeIs contain
13 an inherent defect:. the ceramic washers in the supercharger clutch assembly fail durii1g normal. and
14 foreseeable oper~tion of the subject watercraft. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon
15 allege that failure of the washers often is accompanied by serious, if not catastrophic damage to the
16 engine, as was the case with l~laintif.f Volkmar and many other class members. Despite its
17 knowledge of-the defec~ for years, Plaliitiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that BRP
18 has systematically denied full warranty coverage for replacement of the defective ceramic washers,
19' requiring consumers to make costly repairs themselves and at

their own expense to their Sea.Doo
20 boats. Because the problem is so well known and widespreåd, numerous chat forums and web
sites
21 have sprung up on the internet to help 4. Tec. S.èries own~rs deal with the ceramic waSher problem
~2 created by BRP.
'23 4., . When the fragile ceramic ~ashers fail under normal operating conditions during the
. .,. .
24 warranty period (one year
for private use owners, four months for commerciã1 use owners and
25 longer for owners who. purchase extendedwarianties), BRP, upon information and belief, denies.
. '
26' . full warranty coverage (or the cost of parts and labor t.o repair damaged engine components,
27 inchidmg replacement of
the defective ceriunic washers "1th metal washerS.. In those instances
28 where repairs are covered in part under warranty, BRP will not cover'the cost ta replacè the
2
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
.. .
1 defective ceramic washers with metal'washers. Plairitiffs are' informed and believe and thereon
2 allege that on newer models (2008 and later), BRP started using'
'3 washer~; thus it may ~e reasonably inferred that the original factory installed washers in 2004-
metal washers instead of ceramic
4' . 20074- Tec Series boats are defective in material and workmanship and 'not suitåble for use on the' "
5 subject models.
6 5. With revealing consistency, BRP-authorized'service providers have. told customers

least not fully covt:red, by
7 that the problem with defective ceramic washers is not covered, .or at.
. 8. BRP's warranty. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the decision tn claim
. '.
. . "
. 9 that warranty coverage should be denied in whole or in part was made'by BRP, and that the decision
10 to force customers to pay for repair and replacement of ceramic washers was.
made by BRP.
. .
11 .6. At aU times material hereto, BRP expressly warranted its watercraft from all defect~
in the case of commercial owners
12 in material and workmanship for a period of 12 months (shorter.
any
13 "and longer for owners who purchased extended warranties). BRP would replace, free of charge,
14 part that is defective in material or workman.ship under normal use.
15 7. I)RP's ex.press warranty does not exclude the ceramic washers~
16 8. BRP's decision to claím that the ceramic washers are not defective in material or
17 workmanship 'under, normal use constitutes a bre.iich of its express warranty.

the
18 9. BRP's decision to deny full warranty coverage for repair or replacement of
. 19 ceramic washers, even though the ceramic washers are defecti.ve in material or workmanship under
20 . . normal use, constitútes a breach of

the its express warranty.
21 10.
. .
At all times material hereto;, BRP has marketed, advertised and warranted that its
22 2004-2007 4- Tee Series Superchargea Sea-Doo model b~ats were fit for the ordinary purpose for
23 which such ~oats are used and that its boats are free from defe~ts when ill fact they were not; thus
24 violating its implied warranty. .
25" 11. . Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege the decision to force customers
26 ta pay for the repair or replacement of tht? ceråmic washers was made by BRP.
27 . 12.' Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that BRP has completely failed
28 to take reasonable measures to communicate in any way to. existing owners and prospect~ve
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL .CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

. '
1 purchasers of the subject boa~ that its supercharger ceramic have an inordinate and unreasonable
. ' .
2 propensity to fail under normal operating conditions (and when a reasonable consume.r would not
3 expect a ceramic ~asher to fail). . A recall should have been issued.

4 13. BRP has similady completely failed to take reasonable measures to communicate in
5 any way to prospective purchasers

of subject boats that BRP does not intend to fully cover the cost
6 to replace supercharger ceramic wàshers under its warranty.
. .
7 . 14. BRP has breached and èontinu~s to breach its express warranty by denying coverage
8 even though.the cerarllic washers are defective in material or workmanship under normal use.
9 15. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege ttlat a significant number of
1 0 the subject boats are owned by people who purchased them in the state of California, including
11 Plaintiffs Vol1anar and Bertrand.

12 16. California has a sigllificant contact or aggregátion of contacts to the claims asserted.
. \
13 by each membeI of the plaintiff class, which, by express definition, includes only those persons who
14 purchased the subject watercraft containing ceramic washers on the supercharger assembly unit
15 witlún the state of California. .
16 17. The contacts create a significant state interest and ensure that the application of
17 California law is not ar~itrary or unfaiI.
18 18. The laws of the state of CalifortUa can and should be applied to a California-only
19 class since California.has substantial conta.cts with, and interests in, BRP's policies and proce~Ures
20 that occur and are enacted within the state of California..
21 19. California has a clear, legitimate.and substantial interest in controlling the actions,
22 rights and liabilities of a corporation with regard to the sales of its products that are occurring within
23 the state of California.

24 20. Califonna has a clear, legitirnate and substantial interest in preventing fraudulent
25 . practices in this. state nrbich clearly have an .crfect and impact in California.
26 21. California has a legitimate and Compelling interest in preserving ,a busipess climate
27 free of fraud and deceptive practices. California business depends on a national market to support
28 II
4.
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL. CLASS ACTION CO:MPLAINT
-~
1 its industry. The California remedy for Ø-eceptive a~vertising helps to ensure that the success and
2 growth of California business will ~ntinue.

3 22. Beca~~ the conduct and policies forming the basis of the claim of every chiss '.
4 member emanated from California, C~ifomia has an important interest in applying its law to punish
5 and deter the alleged wrongful conduct.
6. 23. California laws may properly apply to benefit nonresident plaintiffs because their
7 home states h.àve no identifiable interest in denying such persons full recovery and because,
where those class members reside, by definition, they purchased the subject watercraft
8 regardless of
9 from BRP within the state of California. And, their home statei:¡ have no identifiable interest in
. 10 exempting a corporation from liability for conduct or policies occurring in; emanating from, and in.
11 violation of California law.

12
13 PARTIES
14 24. Plaintiff Eyal Volkmar C'Vo1lan~") is and at all times herein mentioned was a
15 resident of the County of Los Angeles, State Qf California
16 25. Plaintiff Càrlos Bertrand ("Bertrand") is and at all tim~s herein mentioned was a
17 citizen of
Texas and a resident of Tarrant County, Texas.
18 26. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege Defendant BRP USA; Inc. is a .
business located in 'N'iscOllSin. Defendant BRP
19 Delaware corporation with its principal plåce of
20 USl\., Inc. may be served through its registered agent, CT Corporation, 818 West 7th Street, Los
21 Ang.eles, California 90017. Service is requested at this time.
22 ..
23
. . JURISrDICTION AND VENUE
. .' .,
24 27. The alle gations and claims for relief set forth herein arise out of acts committed in
. 2.5 this state and around the nation whic.h actS vio~ate California's unfair comp~tition law and common
26 law. Venue is predicated on the fact that pefendan.t transacts business in California and derives
27 substantial revenue from the sale of personal watercraft in California
28 II
5'
PLAINTIFFS', ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

28. the a~ts and sales made the basi~ of

this suit occ~ed in Los
'1 Moreover, some of
the everits or omissions

. 2 Angeles County, and ~s is ajudicial district in which C;l substantial part of
3 giving rlsè to t4e claim occ~ed. Spedflca11Yt Plaintiff"'Volkmar purchased ~ew from and had
. '
4 maintenance work on two s,ubject Sea-Doo personal watercraft by Sea-Doo dealerships located in
5; the Central District of California. The California Seam Doo dealerships where Plaintiff Volkmar
6 purchased his.
two new Sea-Doo personal watercraft purchased the boats from Defendant BRP
7 US'At who manufactured and shipped them to California to be placed in the stream of c,o'mirterce.
8 Plaintiff Bertrand also purchased rus new Sea:.Doo from a Sea-Doo dealership in Califonuathat
limits of
9 purchased the boat for resale from BRP. The Plaintiffs claims are within the jurisdictional
10 this Courtt and no individual Plaintiff or class membets claims exceed $75tOOO.
11
12 ' ALLEGATIONS OF THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES
13.
14' A. Plaintiff.EyalVolkmar'
15 29: ' PlaintiffVoIkmar bought a new 2'004 Sea-Doo RXP from Bert's Mega Mall in
use he heard a sound like
16 Covina, CA in ór about August 2004. Within the first few hours of
17 something being sucked into the engine fo~owed by a decrease in power. . He took the boat to Del
18 Arno Motorsports, a Sea~Doo dealership in Reqol1do Beach, CA, on or about September 26, 2004
19 for' repairs under his warranty. The dealership stated in the repair order th8:t the "s:upercharger.
20' clutch was sl.ippingtl and was replaced (Attempted Repair No.1).
21 30. After a few more ~ours on the water, the boat lo.st power ag~. Voikmar took his
22 RXP back to the dealership on or about November 6, 2004 and reported thi;: problem. The
23 dealership noted in the repair order that "the sùper~harger
i had failed on ,unit and was replaced/'
24 again (Attempted Repair No.2).

happened again. Plaintiff
Volkmar took the boat to the
25 31. A few months later it
26 deal'erslup on or about April 10, 2005. 'The repair order states that "the clutch in supercharger has
27, failed" and once again, was replaced (Attempted Repair No.~).
28 /I.
PLAINTIFFS' OroGINAL CLASS AC1'ION COMPLAINT

1 , 32. " ,
About two weeks later, the sariie problem occurred again. PlaintiffVo1lmiar took the
. '
2 böat to the.deai~rsWp on or about Apri126, 2005, and oU:ce again,"another supercharger assembly
3 was installed. The work order notes that "the warranty on this'unit is valid W1ti18/7/05. There are
,4 no outstanding recalls on this unit." (Attempt~d Repair No.4).
~3.
5 In July 2005 the supercharger let go again resulting in a loss of power. Frustrated
6 with the dealership in Redondo Beach where he had tak~~ the'boat four times 'for repairs with no
. '
7' success, Plaintiff
Volkmar ,took it to another Sea-Doo dealership, Whittier Fun Center in Whittier,
8 CA on or aboùt July 27,2005. The Sea-Doo dealership bolted on still another supercharger
9, assembly and sent PlaliitiffVolkmar on his wa,y (Attempted Repair No.5).
10
" . .
34. Incredibly, PlaintiffVolkrnar's RXP began having the same problems agmn.
11 Believingthe supercharger to be the broken, he took the boat back to the Sea-Doo dealership where
12 he bought the boat, Bert's Mega Mall' in Covina, CA, on or about October :2, 2006. This dealership'
13 determined that broken fragments of failed cer"amic washers were iiiside the engine and that
14 extensive repairs were necessary. The engine was pulled. and many internal parts were r,eplaced
16 35. Plaintiff . .'" ,,

15 due to damage caus'ed by the dis~tegrated ceramic washers. The engine essentially ~as rebuilt
Volkmar was told that.the problems were ,due to the ceramic washers used
17 on all superchargers ii:istalled .on his Rxp.' Plaintiff Volkmar asked the dealership to Í11stall metal '
18 washers during the engine rebuild but the dealership told him that BRP (Sea-Doo) woul'd not cover .
Volkmar paid $190.50
'19 the cost under w~anty. Realizing that the repair had to be made, Plaintiff
Volkmar picked
, , .
20 to have non ceramic washers put on ills RXP. After a month in the shop, Plaintiff
21 up his boat on or about November 3, 2006 andto~k it ~ome (Attempted Repair No.6).
22 36. 'A,month later the boat was not 'running, at" full power so he returned to Bert's Mega
23 Mallon or about December 5, 2Ó06 ~here.the dealersillp rebuilt the supercharger once again. This
24 time the boat pedorm.~d as it was supposed' to perform (Repaìr No.7).
25 37. PlaintifrVolkmar purchaSed a nèw 2007 Sea-Doo RXT from Bert's Mega Mall in or
26 about Septem her 2007. He understood, at the time that. BRP had stopp~d using ceramic washers on
27. the supercharger assembly. He was Wrong. H;e later took the boat to a dealership Úl, California for
28 service and asked them to' replace the ceramic'washers that had caused so'many problems' on his'
7
.~... ...., ".
1 2004 Sea-Doo RXP. The dealership told ~ that Sea-DoD (BRP) would not cover the cost to
2 replace the c~ramic ~ashers unless they failed. Rather than de~ with the nightriiare he experienced .
. . '.
3 with washer failure in his ~004 Sea-Doo RXP, PlaintiffVolkriiar. opted to repl~(;e the defective
4 washers with metal washers now used by BRP on 2008 and newer Sea.Doo 4. Tec Series models, at .
5 a cost of over $500. -Since replaci~g the ceramic washers his RXT he has not had the problems with
, ô the supércha.rger or engine he experienced. with his 2004 RxP.
7',
8 B.
'9
PlaIDtiff Carlos Bertrand
38. On December 31,2'009 Plaintiff. ,, '' Bertrand purchtlSed a new 2007 Sea-Doo RXP from
10, an authorized Sea-Doo Dealership,in Fresno, Califo,rnia (Clawson Motorsports). The boat is a 4-Tec
11 Series, . .' .
supercharged modeL. After Mr. Bertrand purchased the boat in CalifotnIa it was shipped by
~ 2 the, dealer from California to Texas. Upon its arrival, Mr. Bertrand met the shipping agent who told
13 him that before he puts the boat in the water he must replace the ceramic washers used by BRP on
14 the ~upercharger assembly because the washers are defective and will fail causing serjous
15 damage to the engine (tiiiphasis'added). He further told Plaintiff

Bertrand that he was ~
16 experienced Se~-Doo o~er and that the "ceramic washer p~oblem" is wide~read and has been
17 weil known to BRP and Sea-Doo dealers across the United States for severaI years. He iIifonned
18 PI,aintiffBertran4 that the suggested repair costs $500.00 or more.
19 39.
20 complained ~fhe~ein. Due'

. '
PhiintiffBertrand's new 2007 Sea-Doo,RXP contains the defective cerarilic washers
to the in,here~t1Y'4~fective and unsuitable nature of
21 construct 'and manufacture the subJect washers, it is a

the material used.to '
virtually certainty that the washers will fail at
life of the watercraft, under foresee~ble and' ~rdinary

22 some point during the expected and ,useful
23 operating conditions. BRP is very familiar With the problems associated with its ceramic washers
24 but nonetheless has refused to honor its warranty by paying for the full cost of parts and labor'
25 associated .with replacing the ceramic washers with nieta1 washers that are not subject to this
26 complained of defect. In fact, Plaintiff , '

Bertrand contacted several authÇ)rized Sea-o"oo dealersmps
27 who told him that they,

are well aware of the ceramic'wash~r problem ~d agreed that the ceramic
28 II
8
PLAINTIFFS', ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 washers in the brand new boat need to be replaced with improved metal washers to prevent serious
2 engine damage - even though BRP will not,cover the cost. .
3 40.' Plaintiff Bertrand's RXP, in i~ current state, is not fit for, its ordinary .or intended use
of
4 on the water due to the defect in the ceramic washers in the supercharger. BRP had knowledge
5 the defect at the time the boa.t was manufactured and sold to the dealership in California for re~sale
Plaintiff Bertrand uses it

6 to' PlåintiffBertrand as a new boat. The boat haS.a serious defect Ì1l that if
, .'
7 as adv'ertised and represented \\'Ìthout first coming out of pòcket ,several hundred dollars to make a
8 repair to a brand new boat, he runs an even greater risk of severely damaging or ruini.tig the engi~e,
9 not to mention the potenti~ se.fety hazard of ~ eiigine,failure on the, water at hi~ speed (these
7.0 nipb). In the eVent ofwasber failure and engine
10 boats reportedly have"top speeds in excess of
11 damage, Sea-Doo states that under its standard warranty it wil,! only pay for parts to r~pair or .
12 replace the ceramiç washers and damaged engine'parts. This is a Hobson's choice that Plaintiff
13 Bertrand and other similarly situated oWners ofthes~ boats should not be faced with. Consumers
14 . like Plaintiff Bertrand bear the risk and expense of fixing a defect that existed at the time they,
15 bought their boats new. As a result, the boat is not .of the standard, quality and grade it was
,16 represented and marketed t~ be.
17
18 CLASS ACTION ALLEGA nONS

19 41.. Plaintiffs bring each Cause of Acti?n alleged llerein pursuant to Califor~ia Code of
20 Civil Procedure § 382 on behalf of tnemselvesand a' class defined as fql1ows:
21, All persons residing in the United States who pUrch~ed in the state of
California a new 2004-2007 4-Tec Series Supercha.rged Sea-Doo
"22 .
23
assembly. . '
, .personal watercraft, fitted ,with ceramic washers on the supercharger
Excluded from the ci~ are (i) BRP ÙSA" Inc., any entity in which
24 BRP USA, Inc. has a controlling interest or which'has a controlling
int~rest in BRP USA, Inc., and'BRP USA, Inc.'s legal representatives"
25 predecessors, successors,.assigns, and employees, and (li) the judge
and staff to whom this case is assigned, and any member of the .
26 , judge's immediate family.
27 42. As set forth "below, $e class satisfies the requirements for a çla.ss' action.
28 II
9
PLAINTIFFS' ORlGINAL CLASS ACTION COM':PLAINT
the class is clear. and members of

the class are easily ideu.tifiable
1 ' 43. ,The defmition of
2 on the basis of objective information, as all watercraft must be registered ~d ~tled at purchase.
3 Plaintiffs are members of the ~iass that they. seek to represent. Both purchased new 2004"to 2007
4 Sea-Doo 4- Tec Series supercharged models from authorized Sea-Doo dealerships in California.'
5 Members of the class can be identified using information th.at is kept by BRP in the usual course of
the class action through
6 business and/or in the control ofBRP. Class members can be notified of
business by BRP.
7 publication and direct mailings to address lists maintained in rhe usual course of
8 44. Class members are so numerous that their individual joinder is impracticable. The
9 precise number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff, but it is clear that the number greatly
10 exceeds the number to make joinçler impossib~e.
45. Common questions of

law and, fact predominate over the questions affecting only
11
the common legal and factual questions in~lude:
12 individual class membèrs. Some of
13
a. Whether the ceramic washers used on the supercharger assembly are
14 defectiye in materials or workmanship under normal conditions;
15' b. Whether the subject boats. which incorporate the ceramic washers within the
supercharger assembly, are defectively designed; , ,
16
c. Whether BRP knowingly concealed any defect of design, material or
17
workmanship;
18 d. Whether BRP has violated California's Unfair Competition Law by making

or disseminating or causing to be made or disseminated untrue and ,
misleading statements ip. violation of § 17500 from this state before the
19
20
e.
. .' . .
public in any state;,' ' ,
Whether BRP has violated California's Unfair Competition Law by engaging
21 in unlawful. unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices; . .
22 f. Whether repair or replacement pfthe ceramic washers is (or should be)

covered by BRP's express warranty;
23
g. Whether BRP engaged in illegal business practices by failingtotoincur
repair the
out--of-
24 subject.ceramic washers without causing the claSs members'
pocket costs;
25,
h. Whether ,BRP violated express warranties;
26
i. Whether BRP violated implied warranties;
27
J. Whether BRP has been unjustly ~nriched; and
28
10

. e'. .4__'~' . _. ,.. .. ..
,,
k. The nature and extent of damages and other remedies to which the conduct of
1 ERP entitles the class m~mbers. .' '
2 46. BRP eiigaged in a common course of conduct giving rise to the legal rights sought to
3 be enforced 'by the class members. The same product defects, statutory and common law violations,
4 and deceptive business practices are involved. Individual questions, if any, pale by, comparison to
5 the numerous common quêstions that predominate.
6 47. The injuries sustained by the class members flow, in each instance, from a common
7 riucleus of operative facts. In each case Defendant manufactured, supplied and/or sold products
8 n,rith the same defects of materials and workmanship. '
9 48. The class members have been damaged by BRP's misconduct. The class members
10 have purchased boats with the same inherent defect. ciaSs members have been saddled with the
replacement of the defective ceramic washers '
11 Hobson's choice of e~ther bearing the cost of
the ceramic washers, and then being faced

12 themselves, at their oWn expense, or risking failure of
13 with. serious, ifnot catastrophic damage to other engine component parts that BRP claims are not
14 fully covered by its warranty.

49. the claims of the other class members. Plaintiffs
15 Plaintiffs' claims are typical of
,16 purchased new 2004.2007 Sea-Doo 4-Tec Series supercharged models with ceramIc washers that
.' '
17 have an inordinate and unreasonable propensity to fail under normal operating condi,tions and
18 circumstances that would not cause the washers on a non-defective boat to faiL. Plaintiff
19 replaced the ceramic washers Otl both his boats at his own expense. Plaintiff
Volkmar ,
Bertrand has been
20 advised to replace the ceramic washers on his boat too, 'also at his own expens~.
21 50. Plaintiffs will'fairly and adequately protect the interests of,the class: Plaintiffs are
22 familiar with the basic facts underlying the class members' claims. Plaintiffs' interests do not
23 conflict with the interests of the other class members that he seeks to represent. Plaintiffs have
24 retain,ed counsel compete~t and experienced in class action litigation ånd intend to and will
26
d '51.
,,
25' prosecute this action vigorously.
Plaintiffs' coullsel has ,successt'ully prosecuted complex class actions, including
27 consumer protection class actions. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' cOlll1sel will fairly and adeql;lllte~y
28 protect the interests of the claSs members.

11

. ...-.......... ", ._,. . ... . - . ~ -. ...~... .
1' 52. The class action deirice is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient
, 2 adjudication ofthè claims of Plaintiffs and the class members. The relief sought per individual
3 member of
the' class is small given the b~den 'and expense of individual prosecution of the
4 .potentially-extensive litigation necessitated by the conduct ofBRP. Furthermore, it would be

the class
5 . virtually, impossible for the class members to seek redress on an ïndi~idua1 basis. Even if
6 members themselves could iliord such individuallitigation., the court system could not.
7 : 53. Individual litigation of the legal and factual issUes raised by the conduct ofBRP
8 would increase delay and expense to all parties and to the court system. The class action device
9 presents far fewer'management difficulties and provides the benefits of a: single, uniform
10 'adjudication, economies of scale and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
11 54. 'BRP has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply geherally to the class, so that
is appropriate respecting the class as a
.12 fmal injunctive relief or corresponding'declaratory relief
13 whole.,
14 CAUSES OFFIRSTACTION
15 mreach of
CAUSE OF ACTiON
. . Express Warranty)
,'
forth in each of the
16 55.. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate bJ' reference the allegations set.
17, preceding paragraphs of tlus com.plaint.
18 56. In BRP's express warranty bbOk for the subject boats, BRP states that "Bombardier
19 Recrea~onal Products Inc. ("BRP") warrants its model-year (2004 ~2007J Sea-Doo personal
20 watercraft from defects in material or worlmianship for the period and under the conditions',
21 described below." BRP's express warranty is an "express warranty" undetCalifomia law.

"express warranty described
22 57.
BRP provides all purchasers of
the subject boats with the
the basis of the bargain.

23 herein, which became part of
24 58'.
. '
The ceramic washers installed in the subject boats' superchargers are compon~nts
25 originally supplied by BRP.

26 59:' The ceramic washers are defective and fail under normal and foreseeable use.
27 II
28 II
12 '
PLAINTIFFS' ORlGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
._.. -.. .,- _._.- _..- .... ..
60. the
.1 BRP breached its express warranty when it concealed the nature and scope of
2 defect, charged for the repairs/replacements óf ceramic weishers, and!or,refused to repair or replace
3, ceramic clutch washers free of charge.

.'
4 61. ?laintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the class, have notified BRP of the breach
6
.
62.
'
. 5 within a reasonable time.
, ,. '.
7 breach of its express'
Plaintiffs and class-members have been and continue to be damaged by BRP's '
warranty, including the costs of repairing/replacing ceramic washers on subject
8 boats, and have suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
9 63. Plaintiffs and the other class members are entitled'to legal and equitable relief
10 " against BRP, including damages, specificperfo~ance, rescission, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and
11 other relie~ as appropriate~
12
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
13 (Breach ófImplied Warranty of
Merchantability)
14 64. Plaintiffs reallege an~ incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in each of the
,15 preceding paragrap~s of this complaint.
16 , 65. BRP tested, ~~ufactured, advertised, marketed and sold the boats that are the
17 " subject of this action.

1"8 , 66. At all times material hereto, BRP has marketed,' ~vertised and implicitly warranted
19 that its 2004-20074- Tec Series Supercharged'Sea-Doo model boats were fit for the ordinary
20 purpose for which such boats are used and that its boats are free from defects and that the boats
. 21' were manufacturecl in a reasonable workmanlike manner.
22 . 67. BRP knew, or had reason to know that Plaintiffs would rely on said warranties.
23 68. Plaintiffs relied on said .warranties and believed in good faith that the boats were fit
24 for the ordinary purpose for which such boats are used and that the bo"ats "Yere manufactured in a
25 r'easonable workmanlike manner.
26 69. The ceramic washers installed in the subject boats' superchargers are components
27 originally supplied by BRP.

28 II
13
,PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
'_0'_ ._N__ _. _..__....___.__.._._~___...___M..' ....., .--,----.-. --~...-.-.._._-._...
'''4_____.. p~ ,......_). ......_~_.__...__..._...._~..................._......_.__._.._.__._M . ..M.___._.... MM....
.1 "'70., The cer.unic washers' ~e defective and fail llllder normal and foreseeable use ánci are
2 not fit for the ordinary 'purpose for which they are used.
3 71. BRP breached its implied warranty when it concealed the nature and scope of the
4 defect, charged' for the, repairs/replacements of ceråmic washérs~ and/or refused to repair or replace
5 ceramic washers fre~ of charge..
6. 72. Plaintiffs~ 'on behalf of themselves and the class~ have 'notified BRP of the breach
7 within a reasonabl~ time.
8 73. Plaintiffs and class members have been and continue to be damaged by BRP~s
9 breach of its implied warranty, including the costs ofrepairinglreplacing ceramic washers on
10 subject boats~ and have suffered damages in an amount to.be deterrnined at trial.
11 74. Plaintiffs and the o~er class members are enti,tled to'legal and equitable relief
. '
12 agåinst BRP ~ including damages~ specific perfonnance, rescission, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and
13 other relief as appropriate.
14
TIDRD CAUSE OF ACTION
15 , (Declaratory Relief)
75. the
16 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in each of
17 ' preceding paragraphs of this complaint.
18 76;. P.laintiffs seek a declaration of the parties' rights and duties under BRP's expre~s
19 warranty.
20 77. BRP's express warranty is a 'contract of adhesion, draft~d by BRP and presented in
- .
21 its entirety to Plaintiffs and the other persons who comprise the proposed class. BR.? is a large
the proposed class do not
22 ~orporation and Plaintiffs are indivi~ua1s: Plaintiffs and members of
23 possess anywhere near the economic power that BRP possesses. The warranty should be liberally
24 construed in favor of Plainti.ffs and the class ~embers ana any ambigUities resalvec,i against BRP.
25 78. BRP systematically denies warranty coverage and forces PlaintifIs and those they'
26 seek to represent in this action to bear the costs associated with repairing and replacing ceramic
, ' 27 washers even though the ctramia washers are defective in materi~ or wortrnianship under nonna!
28 /1
. '
PLAINTIFFS' ORlGINAL CLASS ACTION CO.MPLAINT
14
._--_.....__......-. _. .._...-_._-----.-¥
. .._.........__ _ ...._... .-...,.......... _ ..ø.__....._.....__._...n..._.______.~.._.. --
. ..~_..,. _.- ..".. -~.- '--'--' ...._-- ... ._..- ._.... ...
conditions. BR:p should have replaced and should in the future replace the ceramic. washers free of
2 charge.'
3 , 79.
4 class they propose
5 declaration of
. "
, ' .
An' actual controversy has arisen and now exists between BRP arid Plaintiffs and the
,to repr~s(mt in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiffs hereby request ajudicial
the rights and duties of the parties with respect to ,BRP'~ express wai:ranty and the
6 foregoing issues in controversy.
7 80. Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that the ceramic w~hers on the subject boats are
8 covered by BRP's express warranty (as defective in material or workmanship under normal use)
"
9 and BRP spould replace such ceramic washers free of charge.

10
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTlON ,
11 (Untrue or Misleading Advertising; CaL. Bus & Prof. Code § i 7500 et seq.)
'.
12 8 i . , Pla.in;tiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in each of the
13 preceding paragraphs of this complaint. .
14 82. By committing the acts and practices alleged in this Complaint, BRP has violated
'15 California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 e,t seq. More specifically,
18.. 83.
. .
16 BRP has violated th~ law's provisions against untrue and misleading ~dvertising by engaging in the
17 ~cts and pr~tices described in abave.

Section i 7500 provides that it is unlawful fOr'any corporati~n with in~ent directly or .
19 indirectly to dispose of personal propertY or to' perform services, professional or otherwise, or

20 anytbiDg of any natUre whatsoever or to induce the pùblic to enter into any obligation relating
21 thereto, to make or disseminate or cause to be .made or disserninated pefore the public in thi~ state,
"
22 Ql, to make or disser,ninate or cause to be made 'or disseminat~ from this state befor~ the public in
23 any state, in my newspaper, or other publication, or any advertisI.Ilg device, or by public outcry or
24 proclamation, or in any other manner or means whatever, including over the Internet, any statement,
25 concerning that personal property or those seniices, professional or otherwise, or concerning any
26 circumstance" or matter of fact connected wit1l the proposed perfonnance or disposition thereof,
27 which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care
28 should be known,' to be untrue ,or misleading.
15
PLAINTIFFS' ORlGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
-_.__._--
.., .'.~_.._. .. .--._~.. ......_... ... - ..-......-:.--.. -,._--" --_.----_.
..... . -. _......--- . ..,._._-_... -_.....- --_._-- ._.~...,......-,-_.
1 84. In enacting § 17500, the California Legislature has reasonably concluded that
, 2' California has a legitimate interest in disco~raging unlawful conduct that bas a potential to harm
3 California consumers as well as persons in "any state" when the unlawtu1 conduct emanates from
4 California.
,5 85. By engaging in the acts and 'practices d~scribed above, BRP bas violated California's
,6 Unfair Competition Law by making or disseminating or causing'to be made or disseminated untrue

7 and rnisleading s~tements in violation of § 17500 "from this state before the public ip 'any state."
8 86. Plaíritiffs and the class members have suffered injury in fact and have lost money
9 and fun'ctional property as a result of BRP' s actions as alleged herein.
10 87. Unless restrained by this Court. BRP will continue to engage tn untrue and
, .
11 misleading advertising"as alleged above, in violation of Section 17500 et seq., as to 'which Plaintiffs
12 have no adequate remedy at law. Plaintiffs seek an. order of this Court for equitable relief as set
13 forth below.
14
FIFTH CAUSE, OF ACTION
15 mnf~~r Competition; Cal. Bus & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.)
the
16 88. Plairitiffs reallege'and incorporate by referenc.e the allegations set forth in each of
this complaint.
17 preceding paragraphs of
18 89. By committing the acts and practices alleged in this Camplaint, BRP has violated
19 California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal.. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.. More specifically,
'20 BRP has engaged in unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or. practices, including, but not
21 limit~ to, in. the following way: :
22
a.
. ,.
Making or disseminating or causing to be made or dissemmated untrue and
statements in violation of § i 7500; .
23 misleading.
24 b. Represepting that the subj eet boats and ceramic washers have characteristics,
uses or benefits that they do not have; ,
25
c. Representing that the su~Ject boats and ceramic washers are of a particular
26 standard, quality or grade when they are of another;.
27 d. Failliig to repair the subject ceramic washers pursuant io express warranties;

and
28
, 16
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT
e. Violating the California' Consumer Legal Remedies Act as set forth below,
1
2 90. Untess restrained by this Court, BRP will continue to engage in unlawful, unfair or
3 fraudulent business acts or practices, as alleged above, in violation of Section 17200 et seq " as to
this Court for equitable'

4 which Plaiatiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Plaintiffs seek an order' of
5 relief as set forth below.

6
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7 (Deceptiv~lBusiness Pr~ctices in Violatio:D of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act)
8
9 91. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by rtference the allegations set forth in each of the
1 0 preceding paragraphs of this complaint.
11 92. The acts and pra~tices described in this complaint were undertaken by BRP in,
12 'connection with ,a "transaction" which was mtended to and did result in sales of personal watercraft
.
13 to Plaintiffs, each a "caIisumer," as those terms are' defined in the California Consumer Legal
14 Remedies Act, CaL. Civil,

,Code sections 1761(d) (defining "consumet'), 1761(e) (derming
15 "transaction") and 1770(a) (describing "proscribed practices").. The subject watercraft (and the
16 ceramic washers contained within their supercharGers) are "goods" as that term is defined in Cal.
17 Civil Code section 1761(a). BRP's acts and praetices."as alleged iii,this complaint, violated, and
18 continue to violate, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act in at least the following respects:
19
a.
20
21 b.
22
c. Representing that a transaction confers or involves rights, remedies, or
23 obligations whic~ it doès not have.
24 93. BRP's acts and practices described above occurred in and/or emanated from
25 California;
26 94. By enacting the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Califonña Legislature has
27 reasonably concluded that California has a iegitimate interest in discouraging 'unlayfful conduct that
28 has a potential to hann California consumers. as weil as persons in.other sta~es when the unlawful'
17
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 cnnduct emanates from Califm;nia. See, e.g., CaL. Civ. .Code' at § 1760 ("This title shall be liberally
2 construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes, which are to protect consum~rs against
,'
3 unfair and deceptive business practices and to provide efficient and ecollCnnical procedures t~ .
4 secure such protection."); § 1761 ('''Consumer' means an

'individual who sçeks or acquires, by
5 purchase or lease, any goods or services for personal, family, or household purposes."); § 1780
6 . ("Any consumer who suffers any damage as a result of the use or employment by ¡my p~rson of a
7 method, act, or practice declareçl to be u:nlawf\il by S'ection 1770 may bring an action. .. ll); and §
8 1780 ("Any consumer entitled to bring an action under S~ction l780 may, if the unlawful method,
9 act, or practice has caused damage to other consumers similarly situated, bring an action on behalf
1 0 ofhims~lf and such other consumers to recover damag'es or obtain other relief ~ provided for in
11 Section 1780:').
12 95. With respect to this cause of ~tion, Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the methods,
13 acts, and pracaces complaine4 of

herein: Plaintiffs expressly disclaitn damages with respect to this
, .
14 cause 'Qf action alone, but reserves the right to, and intends to, amt?nd this complaint pursuant to
. 15 'California Civil Code § i 782(~) to seek such damages,.including punitive damages, not less than 30
16 days aft~r the coaunencement oftms action for injunctive relief, and after compliance with Civil
17 Code §1782(a).
18
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19 illnjust Enrichment)
the
20 96. Plaintiffs reallege and incorPorate by reference the allegations set forth in each of
21 preceding paragraphs of this complaint.
the class, BRP has been, and continues

22 97. ' Tothe detrlment ofPlaìntiffs and members of
23 to be, unjus~y' enriched as a result of
, " the unlawful and/or,wrongftù refusal to repair or réplace the
24' ceramic washers in question free of charge to Plaintiffs and the class members and by requiring
. 25. Plaintiffs and the class members to bear the costs of such repairs/replacements. BRP continues to
26. so benefit to the detriment and at the ~xpense of plaintiffs and members of the class.
27 98. As between the parties, it would be unjust for BRP to retain the benefits attained by
actions. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of

the class seek full restitution ofBRP,'s
28 its.
18
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT.
. '.' . '. .
1 enrichment, benefits, and.ill-gotte"n gains acquired as a result of the unlawful and/or wrongful
2 ,conduct alleged herein.
4 PItA YER FOR RELIEF

5 WlffiREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of.tbemselves' and all oth~ similarly situated, pray for
6 relief pursuant.to each cause of action stt forth in this complali:it as follows:
7 A. Certification of the action as a Class Action with respect to Plaintiffs' claims for
8 irijIDlctive. relief and claims for damages, and appointment of PIaintiffs as ciáss
9 Representatives and. their counst;:l of record as Class COIDlsel;
10 B., A judicial declaration that the ceramic washers çm the sunject boats '. sup~rcha.rgers
.11 are. covered by BRP's' express ,warranty (as defective tn material 'or workmanship
12 under nonnal use); ,
13 c. An award of damages in the' amount of monies already paid by class.J members for the
14 cost ofrepairing'oi replacing the 'ceramic washers on the subject boats;
15 D. With respect ,to the Sixth Cause of Action, ~' order enjoining the ,methods, acts, and
16
17, E.'
practices comp1aine4 or he~~n;
, '
An award of equitable relief'as follo~s: (a) enjoining BRP from continuing to
18 engage in the unlawful, unfair.'and fraudulent pr~tices described in this, complaint;
19 . (b)' requiring BRP to make full, restimtion of all monies wrongfully obtained as a
20 result of the conduct described in this complaint; ( c) requiring BRP to disgorge all
21
.22
. . .' .
ill-gotten g~ flowing from the ~onduct described in this 'complaint; (d) requiring
BRP to provide public notice. of the true nature and scope of the ceramic washer
23 defect; (e) requiring,BRP to abide by the.terms,of its ~arranty and replace ceramic
24 washers that fail as a result of normal operatmg ~onditions; and (f) requirihg DRP to
25 provide extended warranty coverage that erisures th~ free replacement of ceramic
26 washers that fail 'as a result of normal operating conditions. . '

punitive or trebie damages', and
27 F. An award of a~tua1 damages, statutory damages,.
28 : such othe! reli~f as provided by the stat~tes cited herein;
19
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION C9MPLAINT
1 , G. An award of attorney fees;
'.2 H. An award of costs;
3' i. Pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded; and
4 J. Such oth~r relief ~ the Court deems just and proper.
5 Dated:' September 20, 2010' .

6
7
8
'~~;;;s~o.221984J
GIRARDI & KEESE '
1 I26 Wilshire ,Blvd.
9 Los Angeles, CA 90017
Ph: (213) 977M021 i ,
10 Fax: (213) 471-1554
11 BRTTION D. MONTS (PRO HAC VICE PENDING)

HEATHER E. BRIDGERS (PRO HAC VICE
12 PENDING)
THEMONTS FIRM
13
The Frost Bank Building ,
14' 401 Congress Avenue
Suite 1540
15 Austin, TX 78701 '
Ph:: (512) 382-6092
16
Fax: (512) 692-2981
17
,RICHARD E. NORMAN (PRO HAC VICE'
:18 PENDING)
R. MARTIN WEBER, JR. (PRO HAC VICE
19 PENDING)
CROWLEY NORMAN LLP
,20 Three Riverwåy, Suite 1775
21
Houston, TX 77056
Ph: (713) 651-1771
22 Fax: (7t3) 651-1775 '
23 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, BY AL VOLKMAR and

CARLOS BERTRAND, ,and the CI~s .
24 .
25
26
27
'. 28
20
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL CLASS ACTIONCOMPLA.INT
, .
-- . _.
DEMAND FOR JURy TIDAL
Plaintiff hereby requests a jury trial. '

2
3 Dated:. September 20,2010
4
5
6
~~1984J GIRARDI & KEESE
. 1126 Wilshire Blvd. .
. Ph: (213) 977-0211 .
a Fax: (213)471-1554
9 BRITION D. MONTS (PRO HAC VICE PENDING)

HEATlffiRE. BRIDGERS (PRO HAC VICE
10 PENDING)
11 THE MONTS FIRM
The Frost Bank Building
12 . 401 'Congress Avenue .
Suite 1540
13 Austin, TX 78701
'Ph: (SI2) 382-6092
14
Fax: (512) 692-2981
15
RICHARD E. NORMAN (PRO HAC VICE
16' PENDING) ,
R. MARTIN WEBER, JR. (PROHAe VICE,
17, PENDING)
CROWLEY NORMAN LLP
18 Three Riverway. SUite 1775
19 . Houston, TX 77056
Ph: '(713) 651-1771 '
20 . Fax: (713) 651-1775
21 . Attorneys for Plaintiffs, EY AL VOLKMAR and .

CARLOS B:t:RTRAND, and the Class
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21'
, PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Sl)PlilllOR COVkl' OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ,LOS ANGELES
NOT1CE 01" CASE ASSlGNMENf .lJ'NUMlT£D CML CASE

elise NUl'J1bcr
BC445S24
'IWS FOnM IS TO iiE simVEn wlll!:rm: SUMMONS ANl1 COMlJ A:mI
---
Your çai¡e Is an¡uued fur:ill nnmme.. I:Q lbe udlel:il.l offiCtT hidleattd htlliW n,.\\clll nule 1.3fcl\. '1'b.r.rc Ê1litidltloli~i hiforoo:itliiii òu tile teiiel1le (;ide of this
, ASS1CNlID JUDO!:: .~ R09M_ ASSIGNED JUDGE ._ ~,~~ DrIPT .~ ROOM ~
42' 416
Ron. Elihu M. Berle 1 534 Hon. Holly E. K.endig
..........~_..~
224 4S 529,
:HOIl. 1. Stephim C'Xulegèl'
3 Hön. Mel Red Recanii
--....i...~'..¡¡ep ~ ~'"""'""'l,.......
Han. Debro Katz Weintraub 47 ~O7

Hon. Luis A, Lavin 13 630
-
506
Han. 'ferry A. Green
~
14 300 Han. Elizabeth Allen White .. 48
,-
49 509
Han. Rlcliam Fruin IS 307 Hon. Conrad Aragon
- Hon. Rilil MjUer

i.ir~"""""'''__~
Ron. Ricliiird E. Rlco
16
17
306
309
Ron. Jo1m Sbepál'ilWüey Jr.
...........,.,.~~~f'..,..."".
Hoii. Abraham Khan

50
51
50&
511
Hon. Susan Bryiint.Dfl.llSon S2 :51,0

Hon. Rex Heescrniin 19 3)1 ,
..............
~-..; ...",~~.~."'-
310 53 51:3
nO". Kevin C. Brazile 20 lJon. 10M P. Shook
~4 sii
.- ~~
Hon. ZaveD V. Sinimfii.n 23 31S ROIL El.'D.est M. Hiroshigci
~
~ 314 Ron. Malcolm H M,IIc,\(ey .55 515
-
Ho~. Robert L: He~ 24
56 514
BoIl.. M.nry AM Murphy 2S 317 Him. June L. lawson
5'1 S11
26 316 Hen. Ralph W. Diru
Hon. Jiune.i¡ R. Dunn __rw~
SS 516
~"i8
Hon. Yvette M. Pcila:i:uelos 2B
-,._-~ lion. RolfM. Treu
Hou. David L. Minniii g 61 632

Hon, ! oJm A. Ki'onatadt 30 400
._---
407 HCn'I.. Michael L. Stem 62 600

l-loii. Alan. S. Rosenfield 31
Hon. Miuy H. Strobel

......-...._-_.... 1'7W'o..."....
32
33
406
4u9 Hon. Mark Mi:ioruiy

-~~
Hon. K~nnclh R. Free¡xiiin
64
68
601
617
Han, Ch.at'les F.l'a1mef ~
Hoo. RiimOllA See 69 621
Hon. Amy D. Hnglli; 34 4u!l
~"I~'""'"'*_"'"
~-.,w .....
, 3.1 411 H\ln. SOUSSWl O. BrogueI'll

71 n9
lÙ)ll. Paniell:luc.k.leý
,,~ ,...-~--. '" -~.......
HOTl. ~gory Alarcon

36 410 Hon. Ruth AM Kwroi.
n 731
""""""~"",,,~~,.---.....H
~.............Ia&Jt&1' r~ ."..~." '11"..",.,.
413
I
;..!?~~~ll!do~_ ". ......
-..... -
~
37 ~
1':lon. Joanne O'Donnell
......,.._.- ,,"
130
tton. willia.ii.i F.~ 78
Hon. Miiureen Duf'fY-tewls
~.
38 412 I
\..
--~ 324 CCW_ --
Htm, Michnel C, SOllIex'
39 415 ........ Jlon. EmjJrc n.imns* .-.
H' '~N"'''''' ...
40 ~.14
-_..
Other
, "Class Actiops .
Jkrti. Michelle R. Uoseublatt
I- ~i"-.......-...-".,..---.-........~.........,..........
4) 417 .
LIOn. Ronald M. Sohigian _.~
..._-_...............-....
All ClllsS actions iiro li1itlaUy assigned to Judge Emifie H. ERas In Depörtmellt 3i4 of thii Cerii.nil eMl West Courtliouse (600 So CIll11lI\QIlwiia\lh Ave., L05 Angeles &0005).
TlIis aS$lgnmooila £01 tOO purposo of assossing whether Dr niiithe case is r,¡mlpleit ol/ithin the moaning of califoll\Ìa R\Jlés of Coùrt, rulo 3.400. DIlpendrng co thO
r¡ulC(itilE! o1lhalll$ses$~ tho class aellon ca'30 iriay be rea'5Signetl \0 inie Of iti9 Jiitlgns of U1Pl Complex Litigailon Program (/I' r'eii$slgi1ed randomly t¡¡ PI t(l\.d\ hi
C~lr.il DI$lfiC1. '
JOHN A. CLARKE, Executive ()ffic(;r/Clerk

Given 1:0 thePlaintlflì'CrosG-ComplaimmtlAttomey nfRecord on
-~By ._..~........--' Deputy Clerk
p,~ge 1 of 2
LACIV CCH 190 (Rev, 041)0) NOTICE OF CAsi;; ASSIGNMeNT -
LASe Approved OI'i-06
UNlIMIT¡::O CIVIL. CASE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR HANDLING lINLIMIT'ED CIVlL CASES
The following criticiù provIsions of the Chapter Seven R:i.Jes, £IS applicable in the Central Disl1'ict, íU'e summt.iriied for your assistance.
AUUÇATIQN
The Chapter Seven Rules were effec1ive January i) 1994, They apply to flU general ùivil cases,
PRIORI1LQ"VERQWER RULES .
'the Chapter Seven RuJe.s shall have priority over iill other Local Rules to the oxtent the others are inconsistent.
,ÇHALU£NGE TO ASSIGNED JU1)ßE
A challenge under Code of Civil procedure i;cctlol1 170.6 must be made wlihiIl Hi do.ys after notice of assignment for al\ purposes to
a jndge, or if a party has not yet appeared. within 15 days of the fi~t appøamnce.
.1'1M&SIANDA!ID~
Cases assigned to the Individual Calendaring Court wi II be subject to processing und.ér the ,following time standards:
COMPLAINTS; All complaints shall be seiw~ wHhin ~o days of filing and l'loo~ of service shall be filed within 90 days of filing.
o CROSS-COMPLAINTS: Without leave of court first being obt.ained, no crosS'-Complaint may btl filed by any party after the,lr
answer ig filed. Cross-c01uplairiis shall be served within :iO days of the filing date and ß pl'Wf of service filed withhi. 60 Ja.y:! of the
filing dutc. ..
A Status COnf&'eiice wU/ be scheduled by the assIgned rndepeiide'nt Cí\lendat Judge no later than 270 days after the Hitng of tho
oon:iplti.int. Couiiscl must be fully preparud to dlscusii!ho following issue¡;: n.lterntltlvo dlspittl: resolution, bifurcation, ~ettleOlent,
triiil daíe, Il.tld expert witnesses.
FINAL STATUS çONmREJ:jClJ¡
Tho Court will require tlil:l fJarties!l.t a ~;tatus conference not mote than 10 di:i.)'!i bcl'ore'the mal to have timely filed "ud served aU
motions ùi lImme, bifurcMion. motioiis, statemimw of ini:ijor evidentiary issues: disp()l'litive motions, requesi:edjury iii~tnietlotls, aiid
special jury inai:ructions and special jury vermctiJ. These rimlters mny be heard and resolved at this conference, At least S days
hefo.re this couference, coiillse1 must also ha-.rc exchanged lists of exhibits anä witnesses and have submitted to the coiirt n brief
statement of the case to be read to the jury pnnel as l"equ.ixed by Chapter Elght oft.he Los Aiigclcs Superior Court RIlles.
s,,~C1'IO:NS
The court will impose appropriate sanctlong for the f'aì!iire or refusal to comply with Chapter Seven R\lles.. orders flllIde by the
Court, and time standards or dcmd!lnes established by the Co'Urt or by the Chapter Seven Rulßll. Such sanctions may be on a PartY or
ìf app:ropriati!J on counsel for the party.
Thm Is n01 a (!ompJetll delineation of the Chaptèt' Seven Riiles. and adherence only to tho above provisions is therefore,
not a guarantee against tbe imposition of SIUlctioDß under Trlal Court Delay Rèductlon. Careful re.adillg lind
com plillnce with the actual Cbapter'Rohis is abSolutely imperative.
Page 2 of:i
LACIV CCH 190 (FUiv. 04110) NOTICE OF CASe ASSIGNMENT -
LASC Approvod 05-06
UNL.IMITED civii... CASE
EXHIDITB
i GIRARDI I KEESE '

GRAHAMB. LIPPSMITH, SBN 221984
2 i 126 Wilshire Boulevard . ,
Los Angeles, California 900 i 7
3 Tel: (213) 977-0211
Fax: (213) 481-1554 ,
4" THE
MONTS FIRM
5 BRITTON D. MONTS (PRO HAC VICE PENDING) .

HEATHER E. BRIDGERS (PRO HAC VICE PENDING)
6 The Frost Bank Building
40 1 Con~ess Ave.~ Ste. -1540 " ,
7 Tel:
Austin, TX78701' .
(512) 382-6092 . '
8 Fax: (512) 692-2981
9 CROWLEY NORMAN LLP

RICHARD E. NORMAN (PRO HAC VICE PENDINO)
PENDING)
WEBER, JR.' HAC VICE
(PRO
10 R. MARTIN
Three Riverway, Ste. 1775, ' ,
Tel: (713) 651-1771' '
i 1 Houston, TX 77056 ' ' .
12 Fax: (713) 651-1775
13 Attorneys for Plaintifi~ EY AL VOLKMAR and

CARLOS BERTRANU, and th~ Class
14
15 . . . .
SUPÉRIOR COURT OP.'TIIE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
16
17
EY AL VOLKMAR and CARLOS CASE NO. BC445824
18 BERTRÀND, óh behalf of themselves and
19 all other similarly situated, NOTICE OF COURT ORDER
20 Plaintiffs,
21
vs.
22
23 BRP USA, INC.,
24 pefendant.
25
26
27 II
28 II
. 1
NOTIæ.oF COURT ORDER
,
" . '
1 TO DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RËCORD:
2 ,- PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Octo.ber.13, 2010, the above case was designated comple
. 3 and reassigned to Judge Anthony J. Mohr in Department 309 at the Central Civil West Courthouse
4 fnl all further proceedings.
5 PLEASE T AKE'FUR THER NOTICE that the Court also ordered the case stayed until the
6 initial status conference date. ' .
, '
7 . ' , PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that each 'party is ordered to pay $550.00 for complex
8 fees. Within 10 calendar days from the order..
.9 A copy of the Order is attached hereto as Exhibit L
10
Dated: October 18, 2010 GIRARDI I KEESE

11
12
13
14
~~ GRAHAM B. LIPP~
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
15
16
17
18
1'9
20
21
22
23
24
25
,26
27
28
2
NOTIæ OF COURT ORDER
, "' "I . :I '! "
I- IT 1 "
,I
SUPERIOR COURT Of CALifORNIA, COUNTY OF lOS.ANGELES

DEPT. 324
DATE: 10/13/10
DEPUTY CLERK
JUDGB A. MORALES
HONO~LE EMILIE H. ELIAS
ELEcrRONlC RECORDlNG MONITOR"
JUDGB PRO TEM
HONO~LE
Reporter
Deputy NONE
NONE
Plaintiff
,8: 30 am BC445B24 Couiiiiel
EYAL VOLKMAR ET AL Defendant

.. ..
NO APpEARANCES
VS Counsel
BRP USA. INC
.
DEEMED COMPLEX (10-13-10)
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
COURT ORDER
This Court makes it determin"ation whether or not this
case should be deemed complex pursuant to Rule 3.400
of the California Rules of Court.
This case is designated complex and is reassigned to

Judge Anthony J. Mohr in Department 309 at
the Central Civil West courthouse for all further
proceedings and for .all purposes.
The casé is ordered stayed until the initial status
conference date. Notice of Initial Status conference
is to be given by the Clerk"in Department 309. No
respo~sive pleadings may be filed. Parties may file
a Notice of Appearance in lieu of an answer or other
.. responsive pleading. The filing of a Notice of
Appearance shall not constitute a general appearance
and shall not waive any substantive or procedural .
challenge to the complaint. Nothing herein stays the
time for filing affidavit of prejudice pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6.
Pursuant to Government Code section 70616 (c) i each

party is ordered to pay $550.00 for complex fees i '
payable to Los Angeles Superior Court, within ten (10)
calendar days from this date.
plaintiff is ordered to serve a copy of this minute

order on all parties forthwith and file a proof of
MINUTES EN'rERED
1 of 3 DEPT. 324 1Ö/13/10
Page co'()'NTy CLERK
, SUPERIOR COURT Of CALIfORNIA. COUNTY Of ios ANGELES

DEPT. 324
DATE: 10/13/10
DEPUTY CLERK
JUDGE A. MORALES
HONORABLE EMILIE H. ELIAS
, ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
JUDGB PRO TEM
HONORABLE
Reporter
Deputy SJierlff NONE
. NONE
Plaintlff
8: 30 am BC445824 Counsel
NO APPEARANCES
EYAL VOLKMAR ET AL
VS
Defendant REceIVED 1
Counsel
BRP USA INC
OCT 15 2010
DEEMED COMPLEX (10-13-10) r.:1~D

service in the assigned department within seven (7)

days of service.
Any party objecting to the complex designation must
file an objection and proof of service in Department
324 within ten (10) days of service of this minute
order. Any response to the objection must be filed in
Department 324 within seven (7) days of service of
the objection. 'This Court will make its ruling on the
súbmitted pleadings.
CLERK i S CERTIFICATE OF. MAILING/ ..
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the

above-entitled court i do hereby certify that I am not
a party to the cause herein, and that this date I
served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of
10-13-10 upon each party or counsel named 'btilow by
depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse
in Los Angelee:i, California, one copy of the ..
original entered herein in a separate sealed' envelope
for each, addressed as shown below with the postage
thereon' fully prepaid.
Date: 10 -13 -10
John A. Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk
MINUTES ENTERED,
Page 2 of 3 DEPT. 324 10/13./10
COUNTY 'CLERK
,I
SUPERIOR COURT 'OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ios ANGELES

DEPT. 324
DATE: 10/13/10
DEPUTY CLERK
JUDGE A. MORALES
HONORABLE EMILIE H. ELIAS
ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
JUDGE PRO TEM
HONORABLE
Reporter
Deputy She . NONE
NONE
Pliilntiff
8:30 am BC445824 Counsel
NO APPEARANCES
EYAL VOLKMAR ET AL
Defendant
VB
Counsel
BRP USA INC
DEEMED COMPLEX (10-13-10)
KIN HILAIRE
By:
K. HILAIRE
GIRARDI & KEESE

Graham Lippsmi th, Esq.
1126 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90017
Mi'NUTES ENTERED
Page 3 of 3 , DEPT. 324 10/13/10
COUNTY CLERK
.I
PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Los Angeles, State ofCalifomia. I am over'the age of 18
Califomia 90017.1904. .
3 . I am employed in, the County of
4 and.not ~ party to the within action; my business address is 1126 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Nigeles,
5 On October 18; 2010, I served the foregoing document

described as, NOTICEOF COURT
following manner: '

6 ORDER, on all interested parties in this action as set forth on the attached service list in the. '
7 BRP USA, Inc..
c/o CT Corporation .
8
818 W,est Seventh St., 21ld FI.
9 Los.Ange1es, CA 90017 .
. 10 ~ BY MAIL: I am familiar with this firm's practice of collection and processing' ,
correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal
1 i service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaidthe
at Los Angeles,
party, service California
is presumedin th
ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of
12 invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of
deposit for mailing in affidavit. ' ..
13 . said '. .
O.
, ' '
'to service by mail as set forth above, a copy of
BY FACSIMILE: 'In addition
14 documen!.(s) was also delivered by facsimile ,transmission to the addressee(s) pursuaIit to
Code ofCivil Procedure §1013(e). ,. , '. ..
15
16
0 BY OVERNIGHT MAIL: I caused said document(s) to be picked up by arl overnight
delivery service company for delivery to the addressee(s) on the next business day. '
the document listed above t
, 17 0 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: By causing personal delivery of
the person at the address set forth on tl:ie attached service list. .. .
18
19
.20
0
0
. '.' . .
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I caused the above document to be sent to the listed
addressee(s) in the attached service listvia emai1~ ,
STATE I declare'uader penalty of
the above is true and correct. ' , . .

perjury under the laws of the State of Cali fomi a that
. 21 this
0 the member of the bar of
.~
FEDERAL I declare that I am employed in the office of
22 court at whose direction the service was made.. .
23 Executed on October 18, 2010, at Los Angeles, California.
24
25 LAURA BV ANS '

26
27
28
:3
. NOTICE 9F COURT ORDER

1 PROOF OF SERVICE
3 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I
am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is
4 801 Soutli Grand Avenue, Ninth Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-4613.
5 On November 1, 2010, I served true copies of the following document(s)

described as NOTICE TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK OF
6 REMOVAL OF ACTION; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL on the interested parties in
this action as follows:
7
SEE ATTACHED LIST
8
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed said document(s) in an envelope or
9 package provided by the overnight service carrier and addressed to the persons at the
addresses listed in tlie Service List. I placed the envelope or package for collection and
10 overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight service
carrier or delivered such document(s) to a courier or driver authorized by the overnight
11 service carrier to receive documents.
12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe United States of America
that the foregoing is true and correct ana that I am employed in the office of a member of
13 the bar of th1S Court at whose direction the service was made.
14 Executed on November 1,2010, at Los Angeles, CalifOlnia.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 SERVICE LIST
Volkmar, et aI., vs. BRP USA, Inc.
2
Graham Li2Psmith, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
3 Girardi & Keese
1126 Wilshire Blvd. (By Ovemite Express)
Telephone: 213-977-0211
5 Facsimile: 213-471-1554
6 Britton D. Monts, Esq.

Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Plaintiffs
Heather E. Bridgers, Esq.
7 The Monts Firm (By FedEx)
40 1 Congr~ss Avenue, Suite 1540
8 Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: 512-382-6092
9 Facsimile: 512-692-2981
10 Richard E. Norman, Esq.

R. Martin Weber, Jr., Esq.
11 Crowley Norman LLP (By FedEx)
Three Riverway, Suite 1775
12 Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: 713-651-1771
13 Facsimile: 713-651-1775
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY
This case has been assigned to District Judge Ronald S. W. Lew and the assigned
discovery Magistrate Judge is Margaret A. Nagle.
The case number on all documents filed with the Court should read as follows:
CViO - 8253 RSWL (MANx)
Pursuant to General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, the Magistrate Judge has been designated to hear discovery related
motions.
All discovery related motions should be noticed on the calendar of the Magistrate Judge
- -- -- -- --
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---,
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
A copy of this notice must be served with the summons and complaint on all defendants (if a removal action is
filed, a copy of this notice must be served on all plaintiffs).
Subsequent documents must be filed at the following location:
(Xl Western Division Ll Southern Division U Eastern Division

312 N. Spring St., Rm. G.8 411 West Fourth St., Rm. 1-053 3470 Twelfth St., Rm. 134
Los Angeles, CA 90012 Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516 Riverside, CA 92501
Failure to file at the proper location will result in your documents being returned to you.
CV-18 (03/06) NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY
Case 2:10-cv-08253-DDP
UNITED STATES -MAN Document
DISTRICT 1 Filed DISTRICT
COURT, CENTRAL 11/01/10 OFPage 44 of 47 Page ID #:48
CALIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHEET
you are representing yourself 0) DEFENDANTS

I (a) PLAINTIFFS (Check box if
BRP USA, INC.
Eyal Volkmar and Carlos Bertrand, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated
you are representing Attorneys (If Known)

(b) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number. If
yoursel f, provide same.) Murchison & Cumming, 801 S. Grand Ave., 9th FIr., Los Angeles,
Girardi/Keese, 1126 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90017; CA 90017; 213-623-7400
213-977-0211; The Monts Firm, The Frost Bldg., 401 Congress
Ave., Ste. 1540, Austin, TX 78701; 512-382-6092;
Crowley Norman LLP, Three Riverway, Ste. 1775, Houston,
TX 77056; 713-651-1771
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in one box only.) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES - For Diversity Cases Only
(Place an X in one box for plaintiff and one for defendant.)
PTF DEF PTF DEF
03 Federal Question (U.S.
o i U.S. Government Plaintiff
Government Not a Party Citizen of This State o I 0 I Incorporated or Principal Place 04 04
of Business in this State
o 2 U.S. Government Defendant 1Zl4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship Citizen of Another State o 2 0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 0 5 IZl 5
of Parties in Item III) of Business in Another State
Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country 0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation 06 06
IV. ORIGIN (Place an X in one box only.)
o I Original IZl 2 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened District
o 4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred from another district (specify): 0 6 Multi-
Litigation
o 7 Appeal to District
Judge from
Magistrate Judge
V. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: JURy DEMAND: 0 Ves 0 No (Check 'Ves' only if

demanded in complaint.)
CLASS ACTION under F.RC.P. 23:¿;zlVes 0 No 0 MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: $
statement of cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity,)
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U. S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief
710 Fair Labor Standards

400 State Reapportionment 110 Insurance
310 Airplane 510 Motions to Vacate Act
0410 Antitrust 0 120 Marine Sentence Habeas 0 720 Labor/Mgmt.
o 430 Banks and Banking 0 130 Miller Act o 315 Airplane Product
Liability
Corpus Relations
o 450 Commerce/ICC 0 140 Negotiable Instrument o 730 Labor/Mgmt.
Rates/etc. 0 150 Recovery of o 320 Assault, Libel &
Slander Reporting &
o 460 Deportation Overpayment & Disclosure Act
o 330 Fed. Employers'
0470 Racketeer Influenced Enforcement of Liability o 740 Railway Labor Act
and Corrupt Judgment o 790 Other Labor
Organizations 0 lSi Medicare Act 0340 Marine
Litigation
Defaulted o 345 Marine Product
o 480 Consumer Credit 0 152 Recovery of
Liability
791 Empl. Ret. Inc.
o 490 Cable/Sat TV Student Loan (Excl. Act
o 350 Motor Vehicle
o 810 Selective Service Veterans) o 355 Motor Vehicle 610 Agriculture
o 850 Securities/Commodities/ 0 153 Recovery of
Exchange Overpayment of Product Liability
o 360 Other Personal 441 Voting

620 Other Food &
Drug
o 875 Customer Challenge 12 Veteran's Benefits Injury 442 Employment
USC 3410 0 160 Stockholders' Suits o 625 Drug Related
o 362 Personal Injury- 443 Housing/Acco- Seizure of
o 890 Other Statutory Actions 0 190 Other Contract
Med Malpractice mmodations Property 21 USC 61 HIA(l395ff)
0891 Agricultural Act 1Zl195 Contr~ct Product 881 862 Black Lung (923)
o 365 Personal Injury- 0444 Welfare
o 892 Economic Stabilization Liability Product Liability o 630 Liquor Laws 863 DlWC/DlWW
Act 196 Franchise o 368 Asbestos Personal
o 445 American with
Disabilities - 0640 R.R.& Truck 405(g))
o 893 Environmental Matters Injury Product Employment o 650 Airline Regs 864 SSlD Title XVi
0894 Energy Allocation Act 210 Land Condemnation Liabili o 446 American with o 660 Occupational 865 RSI
Info. Act 0220 Foreclosure
0895 Freedom of Disabilities - Safety /Health
o 900 Appeal of Fee Determi. 0230 Rent Lease & Ejectment . . Other 0690 Other 870 Taxes (U,S, Plaintiff
nation Under Equal 0 240 Torts to Land 462 Natu~alization or Defendant)
o 440 Other Civil
Access to Justice 0 245 Tort Product Liability Application Rights o 871 IRS-Third Party 26
Statutes Alien Detainee

o 950 Constitutionality of State 0 290 All Other Real Property 0 463 Ha?eas Coi:iius-
o 465 Other Immigration

USC 7609
Actions
t"'k\
r~ ')11
CIVIL COVER SHEET Page 1 of2

::V -71 (05/08) American LegalNel, Inc.
WWW.FormsWorkflow.com
Case 2:10-cv-08253-DDP
UNITED STATES-MAN Document
DISTRICT 1 Filed 11/01/10
COURT, CENTRAL Page
DISTRICT OF 45 of 47 Page ID #:49
CALIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHEET
VIII(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court and dismissed, remanded or closed? 0 No 0 Yes
If yes, list case number(s):
VIII(b). RELATED CASES: Have any cases been previously filed in this court that are related to the present case? 0 No 0 Yes
If yes, list case number(s):
Civil cases are deemed related if a previously filed case and the present case:
(Check all boxes that apply) 0 A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or
o B. Call for determination of
the same or substantially related or similar questions oflaw and fact; or
heard by different judges; or
Dc. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication oflabor if
the factors identified above in a, b or c also is present.
o D. Involve the same patent, trademark or copyright, and one of
necessary.)
IX. VENUE: (When completing the following information, use an additional sheet if
this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named plaintiff resides.
(a) List the County in this District; California County outside of
this box is checked, go to item (b),
o Check here ifthe government, its agencies or employees is a named plaintiff. If
this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country
County in this District- California County outside of
Plaintiff Bertrand, State of Texas

Plaintiff Volkmar, County of Los Angeles
(b) List the County in this District; California County outside ofthis District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named defendant resides,
this box is checked go to item (c)
,
o Check here if the government its agencies or employees is a named defendant If
California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country
County in this District-
Defendant BRP US Inc. is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal

place of business in Wisconsin.
this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH claim arose.
(c) List the County in this District; California County outside of
Note' In land condemnation cases ,use the location of the tract of land involved
California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country
County in this District-
Los Angeles County
_ Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo Counties
Note: In land condemnation cases, use the location of
the tra land involved
Date November 1,2010

X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PRO PER):
Notice to CounsellParties: The CV -71 (JS-44) Civil Cover Sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings
or other papers as required by law. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 3 . i is not tiled
but is used by the Clerk of the Court for the purpose of
statistics, venue and initiating the civil docket sheet. (For more detailed instructions, see separate instructions sheet.)
Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases:

Nature of Suit Code Abbreviation Substantive Statement of Cause of Action
861 HIA All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of
the Social Security Act, as amended.
Also, include claims by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc., for certification as providers of services under the
program. (42 U.S.C. 1935FF(b))
862 BL All claims for "Black Lung" benefits under Title 4, Part B, of
(30 U.S.C. 923)

the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.
863 DIWC All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of
the Social Security Act, as
amended; plus all claims filed for child's insurance benefit5 based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405(g))
863 DIWW All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of
Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405(g))
the Social Security
864 SSID All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 of
Act, as amended.
the Social Security
865 RSI All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 of
U.S.C. (g))
the Social Security Act, as amended. (42
CIVIL COVER SHEET Page 2 of2

CV -71 (05/08)
Amarican LegalNal, Inc,
www.FormsWorkflow.com
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
3 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I
am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. MY' ousiness address
4 is 801 South Grand Avenue, Ninth Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-4613.
5 On November 1,2010, I served true copies of

the following document(s)
described as CIVIL COVER SHEET on the interested parties in this action as
6 follows:
7 SEE ATTACHED LIST
8 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed said document(s) in an envelope or
package provided by the overnight service carrier and addressed to the persons at the
9 addresses listed in the Service List. I placed the envelope or package for collection
and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of
the overnight
10 service carrier or delivered such document(s) to a courier or âriver authorized by the
overnight service carrier to receive documents.
11 California that
perjury under the laws of the State of
I de~lar~ under penalty of
12 the foregoing is true and correct.
13 Executed on November 1,2010, at Los Angeles, California.

14
15
K1&f£ R. W¥l~'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
1 SERVICE LIST
Volkmar, et aI., vs. BRP USA, Inc.
2
Graham Lippsmith, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
3 Girardi & Keese
1126 Wilshire Blvd. (By Overnite Express)
Telephone: 213-977-0211
5 Facsimile: 213-471-1554
6 Britton D. Monts, Esg.

Heather E. Bridgers, Esq.
7 The Monts Firm (By FedEx)
40 1 COl1.gr~ss Avenue, Suite 1540
8 Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: 512-382-6092
9 Facsimile: 512-692-2981
10 Richard E. Norman, Esq. Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Plaintiffs

R. Martin Weber, Jr., Esq.
11 Crowley Norman LLP (By FedEx)
Three Riverway, Suite 1775
12 Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: 713-651-1771
13 Facsimile: 713-651-1775
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

EYAL VOLKMAR Et Al v. BRP USA INC Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EYAL VOLKMAR Et Al v. BRP USA INC Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:10-cv-08253-DDP -MAN Document 1 Filed 11/01/10 Page 1 of 47 Page ID #:5

1 Friedrich W. Seitz (SBN 51536) !' ~, "'r~

goch@murc isonlaw.com """~l .

3 Anastasia K. Mazzella (SBN 245201)

5 Los Angeie~ California 90017-4613 i.)

6 Facsimile: ( 13) 623-6336

16 state court action complex are attached collectively hereto as Exhibit B.

24 Removal is timely filed.

4 H. THIS COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

7 recovery of an amount in excess of$5,000,OOO, exclusive of costs and interest. Plaintiffs

20 claims exceed $75,000,28 USC § 1332(d)(6) provides that the $5 million

25 F.Supp.2d i 118, 1124 (CaL. C.D., 2005).

5 probability that the amount in controversy satisfies the federal

13 this action was a citizen of

14 relevant to this action was a citizen of

15 10. Plaintiffs correctly allege that Defendant, BRP US Inc., is a Delaware

17 Ex. A.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), "a corporation shall be deemed to be a

28 District Court for the Central District of

5 III. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL ARE SATISFIED

19 State court in which this action is currently pending.

25 States District Court for the Central District of

26 1441, and 1446.

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

--~--_.- .. . ,,"-" 'iC~~:~i~~',¡i:j' '. . ....... .... .....~:~:~:~~:.:.~:::. ...-......... .~~~~~~~1~~~~~

(LO Es;A DEMANlJANIJO EL DEMANDANre.): BER'.l"Rt-NO, on behalf "DAWN DEÂ

l6W.I ~ ,. . ....¡ ,'. -1 ~ 0 as an indMduBI defendant.

... ,.. ..... ..... .- .~...~_.. _.....,_. ....... ......................

1 GRAHAM LIPPSl\4lTH. 'ESQ. (S.B. No. 221984) CONFORMED copy

BR1lTON D. MONTS (PRO HAC VICE PENDING) . Deputy

BY At VOLKMAR and CARLOS CASE NO.

VS. . 1. BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

21 2. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF

. ,'. PROF. CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.)

VIOLA nON OF THE CONSUMER LEGAL

~:~:iJ 'g' ~ "'h .l:...";\ /9\.

PtAlNTIFFS' ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 PLAINTIFFS EY AL VOLKMAR and CARLOS BERTRAND. bring this c1aas action on

7 Series Supercharged Sea-Doo (Bombardier) person~i watercraft.

11 and 215 Wake (the "subject models or watercraft").

19' requiring consumers to make costly repairs themselves and at

6 5. With revealing consistency, BRP-authorized'service providers have. told customers

14 part that is defective in material or workman.ship under normal use.

15 7. I)RP's ex.press warranty does not exclude the ceramic washers~

17 workmanship 'under, normal use constitutes a bre.iich of its express warranty.

20 . . normal use, constitútes a breach of

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL .CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

3 expect a ceramic ~asher to fail). . A recall should have been issued.

5 any way to prospective purchasers

6 to replace supercharger ceramic wàshers under its warranty.

11 Plaintiffs Vol1anar and Bertrand.

20 that occur and are enacted within the state of California..

23 the state of California.

2 growth of California business will ~ntinue.

5 and deter the alleged wrongful conduct.

11 violation of California law.

15 resident of the County of Los Angeles, State Qf California

PLAINTIFFS', ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

28. the a~ts and sales made the basi~ of

the everits or omissions

12 ' ALLEGATIONS OF THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES

24 again (Attempted Repair No.2).

PLAINTIFFS' OroGINAL CLASS AC1'ION COMPLAINT

--~--_.- .. . ,,"-" 'iC~~:~i~~',¡i:j' '. . ....... .... .....~:~:~:~~:.:.~:::. ...-......... .~~~1~

'_0'_ ._N__ _. _......_.__.._._~_..._M..' ....., .--,----.-. --~...-.-.._._-._...

'''4_____.. p~ ,......_). ......_~_......._...._~..................._......_.__._.._.__._M . ..M.___._.... MM....