United States District Court, D. Maryland
LIPTON HOLLANDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case is rooted in a contract to bring a 2012 McLaren MP4-12C
(the “Vehicle”) into compliance with
government regulations regarding safety and emissions. The
parties dispute, inter alia, whether money is due
and owing under the contract.
Konstantin Griaznov is the owner of the Vehicle, valued in
excess of $278, 000. See ECF 1
(“Complaint”); ECF 34 (“Amended
Complaint”), ¶¶ 1, 7. In July 2013, Griaznov
imported the Vehicle into the United States, without
knowledge that the Vehicle was ineligible for importation.
Id. ¶¶ 13, 14. Pursuant to a
“Compliance and Conversion Agreement” between
plaintiff and defendant, J.K. Technologies, LLC
(“J.K.”),  J.K. agreed, inter alia, to
provide compliance and automotive services for the purpose of
satisfying required safety standards promulgated by the U.S.
Department of Transportation (“DOT”) and
mandatory emissions standards promulgated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). ECF 55-1
(the “Agreement”). Plaintiff paid a deposit of
about $20, 500 to J.K. in October 2013 for the
“conversion” of the Vehicle. ECF 45-1 at 9; ECF
45-2, ¶¶ 22, 51; ECF 55-1.
asserts that on numerus occasions, he sought to cancel the
Agreement, as permitted under its terms, and asked J.K. to
export the Vehicle. ECF 4, ¶¶ 28, 30. But, J.K.
refused to export the Vehicle. Id. ¶ 30. After
J.K. completed much of the work, Griaznov terminated the
Agreement and refused to pay J.K. for services rendered.
Therefore, J.K. has retained possession of the Vehicle.
Griaznov filed suit against J.K. He asserts claims of
replevin, trespass to chattels, trover and conversion, breach
of contract, and violation of the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act (“CPA”), Md. Code (2013 Repl.
Vol., 2017 Supp.), §§ 13-101 et seq. of
the Commercial Law Article (“C.L.”), which bars
“unfair or deceptive trade practices.” C.L.
§ 13-301; see ECF 34. Additionally, claiming
that J.K. wrongfully possesses the Vehicle, Griaznov asks the
Court to declare that J.K. cannot retain the Vehicle under
C.L. § 16-202(c)(1) (the Maryland “Garageman's
Lien Statute”). According to plaintiff, C.L. §
16-202(c)(1) is preempted by the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended by the Imported
Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, 49 U.S.C. §§
30101 et seq. (collectively, the “Safety
Act”). Further, Griaznov seeks to enjoin J.K. from
“using, altering, damaging, destroying, or selling the
Vehicle, ” and he seeks an injunction requiring J.K. to
“restore the Vehicle to its original condition . . .
.” ECF 34 at 7-8.
has filed a Counterclaim (ECF 7), alleging breach of
contract, and seeking compensatory damages for research,
labor, parts, and storage costs incurred by J.K. in
connection with the conversion. Id. at 11-12,
¶¶ 13-24. According to J.K., on August 12, 2016, it
completed the conversion of the Vehicle to meet DOT
standards, and on August 30, 2016, it completed the
conversion to meet EPA standards. Id. ¶¶
20-21. It maintains that it is entitled to recover $177,
412.82 on its counterclaim (ECF 45-1 at 4),  as well as
attorneys' fees, interest, and costs, pursuant to ¶
18 of the Agreement. ECF 7 at 12; see also ECF 55-1,
has moved for summary judgment as to Griaznov's Amended
Complaint and as to its Counterclaim (ECF 45), supported by a
memorandum of law (ECF 45-1) (collectively, the
“Motion”) and several exhibits. See ECF
45-2 through ECF 45-5. Griaznov opposes the
Motion. See ECF 54
(“Opposition”). J.K. has replied.
See ECF 55 (“Reply”).
hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See
Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant
the Motion, in part.
Factual and Procedural Background
is a citizen of Russia. ECF 34, ¶ 1. He resides in
a Registered Importer (“RI”) with DOT's
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. ECF 45-2,
¶ 5. J.K. is also an Independent Commercial Importer
(“ICI”), as recognized by the EPA. Id.
¶ 6. J.K. has two members: Lois Joyeusaz and Jonathan
Weisheit. Id. ¶¶ 2, 4. In an Affidavit of
Weisheit (ECF 45-2), submitted with the Motion, he avers that
J.K. “is not now and has never been an automotive
repair facility.” Id. ¶ 8. Rather, J.K.
specializes in the conversion of foreign manufactured
automobiles to comply with DOT and EPA standards, thereby
allowing those vehicles to be imported into the United
States. Id. ¶ 7.
is the Lead Project Engineer at J.K. (id. ¶ 4)
and he “was responsible for the conversion of the
Vehicle.” Id. ¶ 11. In that role, he
personally worked on the Vehicle “to determine what
modifications needed to be made to . . . make it eligible for
importation into the United States.” Id.;
see also Id. ¶ 4. His work “included,
among other things, obtaining proper programming codes and
working directly with DOT and EPA in order to modify the
Vehicle's computer, emissions, and safety systems.”
Id. ¶ 11.
maintains “a registry, ” also known as the
“eligibility list for importation” (hereinafter,
the “Eligibility List”), which contains the
“make, model and year of a vehicle that is determined
by DOT to be eligible for importation” into the United
States. ECF 45-2, ¶ 21. If a vehicle is not on the
Eligibility List, it may not be imported. Id.
However, an RI can place a foreign manufactured vehicle on
the Eligibility List by, inter alia, filing a
“Petition for Import Eligibility, ” which DOT
must then approve. Id. To file such a petition, the
RI must “set forth specific alterations and/or
modifications that, ” if made, “will bring the
petition vehicle into compliance with DOT safety
to Weisheit, in 2011 “Euro Tuning Hall, a fictitious
entity, ” purchased the Vehicle from Gemballa Europe
for 209, 000.00 Euros. See ECF 45-1 at 4; ECF 45-2,
¶ 12. On an unspecified date, the Vehicle
was shipped to the United States “without Griaznov ever
ascertaining” if it complied with DOT and EPA
standards. ECF 45-2, ¶ 12. Because Euro Tuning Hall
“was not in existence and did not have a VAT number or
a Tax ID number, ” ownership of the Vehicle was
“changed from Euro Tuning Hall to Konstantin Griaznov
to enter the United States.” Id.
“early July 2013, ” Griaznov's agent, Eugene
Karr, contacted J.K. ECF 45-2, ¶ 13. According to
Weisheit, Karr stated that Griaznov “had purchased the
Vehicle in Germany and that the Vehicle was stuck in U.S.
Customs in Miami and would need to be shipped back to Germany
unless he could find an RI or ICI that would agree to perform
the necessary conversion work.” Id. Karr also
indicated that he and Griaznov had “already spoken to .
. . DOT, EPA, the manufacturer of the Vehicle (McLaren), and
Gemballa, ” and Karr and Griaznov were aware that the
“Vehicle was not approved by DOT” and was
“not on the import eligibility list.”
stated that “McLaren was going to assist in the
petition process.” ECF 45-2, ¶ 13. According to
Weisheit, “[t]his was important because if . . .
McLaren could provide Mr. Karr with a manufacturer's
letter with a listing of the parts required to convert the
Vehicle for EPA and DOT, the petition process would only take
a few months, J.K.'s . . . work would be reduced in
scope, and the EPA testing would be waived.”
9, 2013, J.K. provided Griaznov with a financial estimate for
the conversion. ECF 45-2, ¶ 15; see also ECF
45-3 (J.K.'s undated quote to Griaznov) (hereinafter, the
“Quote”). The Quote states, in relevant part, ECF
45-3 at 1-2 (bold in original; italics added):
Estimate: $12, 000.00-$18, 000.00 plus any safety
systems parts that are not in compliance with USDOT
Standards, provided the vehicle has a functioning emissions
system . . . [and no] additional
emissions systems parts and testing will be
necessary. In addition USEPA requires a
1% Fee based on the declared value of the
vehicle. U.S. Customs charges 2.5% duty, and U.S. Customs and
USDOT have bonds that cost approximately 1% that must be paid
upon entry into the USA.
. . . . [T]his estimate is only valid for two months. The
estimate is designed to give you an idea of the cost of
conversion depending on how the car is equipped and its
condition upon arrival in our facility. If the car is not
equipped correctly or is in poor condition, there could be
additional charges. There could also be additional
charges if the car is not on the NHTSA eligibility list.
Their website is www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/import
and contains valuable information regarding import procedures
and links to other Agencies.
* * *
After the car arrives at our facility, we will do all of the
necessary modifications to bring it into conformity with DOT
and EPA regulations. This generally takes an average of
90-120 days. If the car is not equipped correctly . . .,
is in poor condition, AND/OR is not on the DOT eligibility
list . . ., there could be additional charges and additional
time for your car to be released from DOT and EPA. These
times range from several months to over a year if there is a
fight with a manufacturer.
* * *
If the car is not emissions equipped, we replace all
non-conforming parts with U.S. parts and there will be
substantial extra charges and additional time.
* * *
We require a deposit of the base price plus agency fees with
execution of the contract and the balance will be due upon
receipt of parts for the vehicle or as billed to us by each
supplier. This final payment must be in the form of a wire,
ACH, or cashier's check . . . .
July 9, 2013, J.K. informed Karr that certain documents were
“required to obtain a Box 13 letter” from DOT.
ECF 45-2, ¶ 14. According to Weisheit, a “Box 13
letter gives special permission for a vehicle that is not on
the DOT eligibility list to enter the United States.”
Id. On July 11, 2013, J.K. requested a Box 13 letter
for the Vehicle. Id.
and Griaznov executed the Agreement on or about July 12,
2013. ECF 45-2, ¶ 16; see ECF 55-1. In the
Agreement (ECF 55-1), Griaznov is designated as the
“Importer” and J.K. is the RI. See ECF
55-1 at 2. According to plaintiff, the Agreement provided
“an estimated base cost of $18, 000.00 for the
conversion” plus a flat fee of $2, 500 for the petition
for eligibility. ECF 34, ¶ 10. Yet, plaintiff also
asserts he had to pay a deposit of $18, 000. Id.
¶ 11.The Agreement states, in part, ECF 55-1
at 2-6 (bold in original; italics added):
Importer wishes to import the following vehicle:
2011 McLaren MP4-12C
VIN: SBM11AAB7CW000416 “The
* * *
D. The Importer is required to furnish to the Department of
Transportation (DOT) a signed and executed agreement between
Importer and Registered Importer (RI). This contract must
commit the RI to conduct the conformance modifications
required under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and
regulations adopted under it, and other safety related acts
* * *
F. The Importer understands that USEPA, U.S. Customs, and
USDOT require a U.S. Customs bond and a DOT bond for the
vehicle to clear U.S. Customs and conditionally enter into
the RI/ICI facility. . . .
G. The Importer wishes to contract with J.K. for conversion
and compliance work on the vehicle specified above.
* * *
2 ..... If there are any outstanding fees unpaid for U.S.
Customs or any other Agency at the time of importation that
J.K. has to pay on the importer's behalf, interest will
accrue at one point eight percent (1.8%) per month until the
amount is reimbursed. In addition, storage of twenty five
dollars ($25.00) per day will be charged until all unpaid
balances are satisfied.
3. J.K.'s work shall be deemed to be complete on the date
DOT and USEPA hold periods have expired, provided the
Agencies have not issued any request to delay the period.
Importer understands that J.K. cannot make any guarantees
regarding the time it takes to receive parts from a
manufacturer, convert a vehicle, or obtain
appropriate clearances from DOT and/or EPA.Further, the
importer understands that the Agencies can, at any
time, request further research, testing or other information,
which could delay the importation process. J.K. is in no
way responsible for Agency response times, performance, or
requests for additional information, which may cause delays.
This is especially true for vehicles that are not already
on the eligibility list. For vehicles requiring a petition
for a determination by the DOT that the vehicle is eligible
for import, JK [sic] cannot guarantee the time frame
for approval of a petition or guarantee the DOT will
approve the petition and grant an eligibility determination.
If DOT rejects the petition, or the Importer decides it is
too expensive to continue, and has the RI rescind the
petition, the vehicle must be exported or destroyed.
4 ..... Importer hereby waives any and all rights to
possession of the vehicle until DOT and USEPA's hold
periods have expired. Importer further understands that
until this time period has elapsed, J.K. will only release
the vehicle into the custody of U.S. Customs.
5. J.K. reserves the right to submit an invoice for its
services to Importer every thirty (30) days during the term
of this Agreement. Invoices may be farther apart if parts are
not received by J.K. and cannot be billed during this time
frame. Should Importer fail to pay J.K. within ten
(10) days after the date of J.K.'s invoice, J.K. reserves
the right to charge storage fees for the vehicle of
twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per day until any outstanding
invoices are paid.
* * *
7. J.K. estimates that the cost for conversion of
Importer's vehicle is $18, 000.00 PLUS any emissions
system parts, safety system parts, labor, research and
development, and any testing necessary to bring the vehicle
into conformity with USEPA and DOT specification . .
. . This estimate is our best guess without seeing
the vehicle and may be updated . . . .
8. If the vehicle arrives at J.K. in
poor condition, declared incorrectly, is not on the
DOT eligibility list, or DOT Show or Display
eligibility list, or does not have a functioning emissions
system based on the Importer's representations,
there may be extra charges. . . . The
Importer understands that all estimates are based
specifically on the representations of the owner. JK [sic]
has not seen the vehicle or had the ability to inspect the
vehicle prior to providing a quote. JK [sic]
recommends checking with the manufacturer directly before
making any assumptions regarding required components.
9. Should this vehicle be subject to any Factory recalls for
a period of ten (10) years, as required by the DOT or USEPA,
the owner shall provide proof that the work required has been
completed in a manner acceptable by the DOT and USEPA or
shall authorize J.K. to perform the required work or
authorize J.K. to have such work performed by another
company. The preceding work [is] to be completed at the
owner's expense. . . .
10. Final payment must be made in cash, wire transfer, or
11. Importer understands that if the vehicle is not
picked up within ten (10) days of notice, storage fees will
apply at twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per day from day of
completion. Importer understands that after thirty (30)
days the vehicle will be forwarded to National Lien and
Recovery for liquidation in order to pay the mechanics lien
on the vehicle for work completed.
* * *
14. If the vehicle imported by Importer is not on the DOT
Eligibility List, as published on the DOT's website and
in the Federal Register, the Importer agrees to pay J.K. to
place the vehicle on the Eligibility [List] as well as a
daily storage fee of twenty five dollars ($25.00) per day,
until the vehicle is placed on the Eligibility List.
15. Either party shall have the right to terminate this
Agreement for any reason upon thirty (30) days of notice to
the other party. If Importer terminates this Agreement prior
to J.K.'s completion of its work, Importer agrees to pay
J.K. a storage fee of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per day
until the vehicle is removed from J.K.'s custody and
control, together with all other costs and expenses incurred
* * *
17. Importer consents to jurisdiction and venue in the state
and federal courts sitting in the State of Maryland.
18. If J.K. employs attorneys to enforce any rights arising
out of or relating to this Agreement, and J.K. prevails in
any action brought by its attorneys, Importer shall pay
J.K.'s reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and other
* * *
19. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Maryland.9
20. Limitation of Damages. In the event of a
dispute, Importer consents to limit the damages it may obtain
from JK [sic] through any cause of action including
J.K.'s negligence, breach of contract, breach of
warranty, or violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act
to no more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2, 500)
inclusive of attorney's fees and costs.
posted bond with U.S. Customs on July 25, 2013, and took
possession of the Vehicle. ECF 45-2, ¶ 17. On July 26,
2013, J.K. provided Karr with a “Condition Report,
” detailing the “relevant operating systems on
the Vehicle and checking the engine compartment and
trunk.” Id. ¶ 19.
Griaznov, and Karr met “for several hours” on
August 7, 2013. Id. ¶ 20. During that meeting,
they discussed “research” necessary to convert
the Vehicle. Id. Additionally, Griaznov and Karr
indicated that they “were working on getting”
support from McLaren and Gemballa to help facilitate the
August 8, 2013, J.K. began to prepare a DOT Petition for
Import Eligibility (the “Petition”) for the
Vehicle. Id. ¶ 21. According to Weisheit, the
Petition contained a detailed plan for conversion, addressing
“every Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, ”
including “part numbers and drawings.”
Id. Between July 28, 2013, and August 8, 2013, J.K.
“devoted hundreds of hours completing the Petition,
including the investigation of each [safety standard]
applicable to the Vehicle . . ., research and development for
[the] Vehicle's on-board diagnostic system and other
tasks, communicating with the shipping company,
Griaznov's agents, customs brokers and DOT personnel,
locating diagnostic tools, as well as coordination of the
logistics, contracts and other submissions. J.K. even took
apart several existing automobiles to investigate their
computers and hardware.” ECF 45-2, ¶ 21.
Additionally, “J.K. downloaded and printed parts lists,
[and] parts diagrams . . . .” Id. ¶ 22.
avers that he emailed and spoke with Karr on a regular basis,
giving Karr “a detailed status update at least once or
twice a week.” Id. He claims that Karr
“was very active in the Petition process.”
Id. According to Weisheit, by the end of September
2013, Griaznov had not paid an initial deposit to J.K.
Id. J.K “told Mr. Karr that it would not be
filing the Petition until the deposit was paid.”
Id. On October 9, 2013, Griaznov paid J.K. a deposit
of $20, 500.00. Id. ¶¶ 22, 51.
filed the Petition with DOT on October 25, 2013. Id.
¶ 23. And, on November 12, 2013, J.K. provided a
“copy of the complete Petition” to Karr, which
included “a complete description of the anticipated
conversion work including all parts numbers and complete
December 3, 2013, J.K. received a letter from DOT, requesting
revisions to the Petition. Id. ¶ 24. Therefore,
J.K. revised the Petition and resubmitted it to DOT on
December 10, 2013, to include additional parts and drawings.
Id. The Petition was again revised on January 30,
2014, to correct an error made by DOT as to the year the
Vehicle was manufactured. Id. ¶ 25.
February 27, 2014, J.K. sent Karr a copy of “the
accepted Petition along with pictures, receipts, part
numbers, and diagrams detailing the complete conversion of
the Vehicle.” ECF 45-2, ¶ 26. And, on March 3,
2014, a copy of the accepted Petition was published on the
Federal Register Docket, under number NHTSA-2014-0004.
Id. The following day, March 4, 2014, J.K. emailed
Karr, informing him that the Petition was available on the
Federal Register Docket. ECF 45-2, ¶ 26. On that same
day, J.K. provided Karr with “a link to the complete
Petition including part numbers and drawings.”
Weinstein, a McLaren employee, “submitted
comments” on the Petition on March 27, 2014, “in
an attempt to block approval” by DOT. Id.
¶ 27. On April 15, 2014, McLaren filed comments with
DOT, taking “the position that the conversion [of the
Vehicle] would not be possible.” Id. Between
May 21, 2014, and July 29, 2014, “J.K.'s staff
spent over 150 hours preparing a response to McLaren's
comments.” Id. ¶ 28. Weisheit asserts,
id.: “Because Griaznov and his agents were not
able to get the assistance of Gemballa and McLaren as they
promised (and McLaren was, in fact, opposing the Petition),
J.K. was forced to spend considerable time and resources to
obtain information to be able to respond to McLaren's
comments.” J.K. responded to McLaren's comments on
July 29, 2014. Id.
on August 10, 2014, Karr informed J.K. that Neil Bender
“was now the legal representative for Griaznov.”
Id. ¶ 29. However, Karr remained a
representative for Griaznov after that date. See Id.
emailed J.K. on August 18, 2014, and “purportedly
cancelled the [Agreement] and demanded that J.K. export the
Vehicle.” Id. ¶ 29. According to
Weisheit, in order to “comply with this demand, J.K.
began re-assembling the Vehicle in preparation for exporting
it.” Id. Additionally, J.K. explained to
Bender and Karr that “J.K. has spent considerable hours
in research and development on the [Vehicle and] that J.K.
must to be [sic] paid for this time, as well as for the time
it would take to re-assemble the Vehicle for
exporting.” ECF 45-2, ¶ 29. Weisheit avers that
“Mr. Bender and Mr. Karr acknowledged this and instead
requested that J.K. continue with the Petition comment
process and conversion of the Vehicle.” Id.
November 19, 2014, DOT published J.K.'s response to
McLaren's comments. ECF 45-2, ¶ 30. Then, in January
2015, Karr again “reversed course” and told J.K.
that Griaznov wanted to “export the Vehicle.”
Id. ¶ 31. At that juncture, Karr acknowledged
“Griaznov's contractual obligation to pay for all
of the research and development conducted to date, as well as
the agency fees and storage.” Id. However,
“[a]fter further consideration, ” Griaznov
“again requested that J.K. continue with the Petition
and conversion processes.” Id.
March 26, 2015, DOT concluded that the Vehicle was
“readily able to be modified” so as to satisfy
DOT standards. Id. ¶ 32. And, on April 3, 2015,
the Vehicle was added to the Eligibility List. Id.
Karr notified J.K. that he “wanted to obtain the parts
on his own to complete the conversion of the Vehicle.”
Id. ¶ 34. Weisheit avers that “from the
beginning, J.K. was relying on Plaintiff and Mr. Karr's
representations that they would be able to procure the parts
from the manufacturers, ” i.e., McLaren and/or
Gemballa. Id. Despite Karr's “assurances
that he had connections with McLaren and Gemballa, Mr. Karr
was unable to get the parts for the Vehicle. Indeed, McLaren
refused to sell the necessary parts to anyone, including
J.K.” Id. As a result, “J.K. was forced
to spend significant time and resources tracking down and
obtaining the parts necessary for the conversion of the
Vehicle.” Id. ¶ 35. J.K. employees
Reinaldo Benjumea and Joyeusaz flew to California “to
source, inspect, and purchase several parts required for the
conversion.” Id. ¶ 36. In all, J.K.
“spent over 100 hours in its efforts to obtain the
parts necessary for the conversion of the Vehicle.”
Id. ¶ 35.
J.K. purchased multiple parts. ECF 45-2, ¶¶ 35-37.
Further, J.K. rewired “the entire vehicle with
compliant systems.” Id. ¶ 37.
15, 2015, “J.K. sent Mr. Karr a list of the parts
sourced by J.K. to complete the conversion. The list included
the prices of those parts.” Id. ¶ 38.
Thereafter, on an unspecified date, Karr “demand[ed]
the Vehicle be exported out of the United States without
paying J.K. for the services J.K. provided.”
Id. ¶ 39. Weisheit avers, id. ¶
40: “Because the Vehicle was in this country on
J.K.'s bond, and was the only security that J.K. had to
ensure payment, J.K. was not willing to export the Vehicle
out of the United States without first receiving all amounts
due under the Contract.” Additionally, Weisheit avers
that, “[p]rior to the Vehicle being converted to meet
United States standards, it was considered contraband and
could not be sold, offered for sale, or even driven” in
the United States. Id.
sent an invoice to Griaznov on June 30, 2015. ECF 45-5 at 4-5
(Invoice # 1965, dated June 30, 2015). The invoice listed
parts in the amount of $29, 919.87, labor in the amount of
$8, 100.00, and storage fees in the amount of $3, 050.00, for
a total sum of $41, 069.87. See id.; see
also ECF 45-2, ¶ 41. According to Weisheit,
Griaznov “refused to pay this invoice so the vehicle
remained in J.K.'s facility.” ECF 45-2, ¶ 41.
However, because J.K. was “obligated by the EPA and DOT
rules and regulations, the bond, and the terms of the
[Agreement], J.K. completed the conversion of the Vehicle,
” despite Griaznov's failure to pay. Id.
J.K. completed the conversion of the Vehicle, it “was
required . . . to have the manufacturer of the Vehicle
(McLaren) remedy any recalls.” Id. ¶ 43;
see ECF 55-1, ¶ 9. Accordingly, on June 14,
2016, J.K. sent the Vehicle to a McLaren facility, where
“multiple factory recalls” were performed. ECF
45-2, ¶ 43. According to Weisheit, McLaren also
“serviced and inspected” the Vehicle.
20, 2016, J.K. provided DOT with the “final report
detailing and documenting the conversion” of the
Vehicle. ECF 45-2, ¶ 44. And, DOT released the bond on
the Vehicle on August 12, 2016. Id. ¶ 45. On
August 15, 2016, J.K. paid the EPA fees for the Vehicle, in
the amount of $2, 785.97. Id. ¶ 46. And, on
August 30, 2016, J.K. “made the final submission for
inspection to the EPA.” Id. ¶ 47.
Subsequently, the bonds that J.K. had posted with the EPA and
U.S. Customs were released. Id. Therefore, the
Vehicle is “able to be released into the commerce of
the United States . . . .” Id. ¶ 48.
According to J.K., the conversion has increased the value of
the vehicle. Id.
filed the Motion on October 3, 2017. See ECF 45.
According to Weisheit, as of September 30, 2017, $177, 412.82
remained due and owing to J.K. from Griaznov. ECF 45-2,
¶ 52. That amount includes, id.:
• Regulatory customs bond, title, and inspection fees in
the amount of $17, 989.44.
• Costs and expenses related to the Petition comment and
approval process in the amount of $1, 945.00.
• Research and development costs in the amount of $55,
• Travel expenses related to the procurement of
conversion parts in the ...