Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Yi v. Lotus Cars USA

United States District Court, D. Maryland

August 2, 2016

CHONG SU YI, Plaintiff
v.
LOTUS CARS USA, Defendant

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          DEBORAH K. CHASANOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         The above-captioned complaint, invoking this court’s federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, was filed together with a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis shall be granted. The facts and arguments in this case follow:

         3. Federal Question:

After receiving 15 dollars under Code of Maryland Regulations 11.11.05.03; at 9/18/2015; on driver license renewal fee; where none paying person could not drive; where law is State’s expression protected under first amendment;
So when State speaks through legislated laws; pa 15 dollars renewal fee; and public reply, by paying 15 dollars; and there is reply back; is there legal obligation to State?
Example is if person advertises summer camp in internet; 40 dollars, and person sends in payment via email; and owner of site reply back; Is there form of obligation by owner of site?
If so does obligation applies retroactively, for prior to renewal of driver’s license; or does traffic points get erased; i.e. obligation starts new in clean slate?
If not, if points on driver license stay, then automobile ownership; when plaintiff was in lawful driver license before the renewal; be deprived without due process of the law? If so Statute of limitation without dread; fade of memory; evidence et al; constitutional under ‘secure in their persons effects?

         4. Facts of the case are:

Plaintiff bought new car in 1999; canary yellow Lotus spirit v8; $92, 000 dollars with 2yr bumper to bumper warranty; and engine malfunctioned; at 3, 400 on odometer. Dealer refuse to cover warranty; because oil was not changed at 1, 000 mile mark; part of bumper to bumper warranty; dealer name was fox valley motors; now known as global luxury imports; with Mr. Nuccio; who still owns it; who sold the car; took the responsibility at the time of sale of car; when it had problem;
Exceptions are using as taxi, or not following maintenance schedule; or racing. Car’s piston rod broke at 180 mph; not eluding; not escaping police; and no crime was committed but driving past 55 mph; of eluding evading charges were dropped at trial. To see if car could reach 220 mph on speed odometer; and engine stalled at 180 mph; with police in souped up Camaro present; thus there was no racing; and warranty was never denied under racing; stalled due to broken piston rod;
To void warranty under maintenance, it has to be more than one; plural “maintenances”; “services’; it was not singular.
Fox valley did not honor warranty, or Lotus America.
Briton parent company states its American arm is not under its own legal jurisdiction; therefore could not ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.