Scott Gates v. Oklahoma City Volkswagen, LLC

IN THE DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA SCOTT GATES and DANA HARTINGTON, Plaintiffs, vs. OKLAHOMA CITY VOLKSWAGEN, LLC, Defendant. PETITION COME NOW the plaintiffs, Scott Gates and Dana Hartington, and for their Petition against the defendant, Oklahoma City Volkswagen, LLC, state as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Scott Gates (hereafter “Gates”), is a resident of Payne County, Oklahoma. 2. Plaintiff, Dana Hartington (hereafter “Hartington”), is a resident of Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Defendant, Oklahoma City Volkswagen, LLC (hereafter “Defendant”), is an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, with its principal place of business in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 4. The matter sued upon herein occurred primarily in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 5. Defendant has sufficient contacts with the State of Oklahoma to warrant the exercise of in-personam jurisdiction by this Court over Defendant. Pursuant to 12 O.S. §2004(F), this Court has proper subject matter jurisdiction, and pursuant to 12 O.S. §134, venue is proper in Oklahoma, County. OBJECT AND NATURE OF ACTION 6. This action by Gates and Hartington (collectively “Plaintiffs”) is to recover actual and punitive damages for fraud, fraudulent inducement, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and violation of the Truth-In-Lending Act regarding a vehicle purchase by Plaintiffs from Defendant. CONSUMER PROTECTION RULES THAT MUST BE FOLLOWED 7. A car dealer must be truthful with its customers to protect others from harm. 8. A car dealer must ensure its employees do not alter the terms of its customers’ contracts without the customers’ express permission to protect others from harm. 9. A car dealer must ensure its employees do not sign its customers’ signatures without the customers’ express permission to protect others from harm. 10. A car dealer must properly train and supervise its employees to protect others from harm. FACTS 11. On December 29, 2023, Plaintiffs purchased a 2024 Volkswagen Jetta from Volkswagen. 12. Gates’ father, Damien Kostick, negotiated the entire purchase over the phone but was not present in Oklahoma. 13. Hartington agreed to serve as a co-signer and Defendant stated it would overnight the documents to Hartington to sign, after Gates signed in person. 14. Gates agreed to trade his 2020 Ford EcoSport toward the purchase of the Jetta, and Defendant agreed to pay the loan Gates owed on the EcoSport to Exeter Finance. 15. Gates was taken to the finance office to sign the purchase paperwork where Defendant’s employee presented papers one at a time for Gates to sign. The employee made brief and cursory explanations of each document and then told Gates to sign. Gates did not read the documents other than to verify the spoken words of the employee, who then took each document away after Gates signed. Gates relied on the statements made by the employee. Upon information and belief the statements made by the employee were incomplete and misleading, because Defendant’s employee directed Gates’ attention to the numbers and never mentioned the word “arbitration”. Gates had no idea he was agreeing to arbitration or what the term meant, and Defendant’s actions amounted to fraudulent inducement. 16. The terms of the purchase papers stated Gates’ first payment would be due on June 26, 2024. 17. On January 5, 2024, Hartington received purchase papers to sign, which she signed and mailed the next day. 18. Nearly a month later, Gates noticed a withdrawal was made from his bank account by Exeter Finance for a payment on the Ford EcoSport. 19. Gates’ father immediately contacted Defendant to ask why the loan had not been paid and why a payment had been withdrawn by Exeter Finance. 20. Defendant’s employee told Gates’ father that Hartington had delayed signing and returning the paperwork to Defendant, which was an untrue statement. Gates’ father told the employee that Hartington received and signed the paperwork on January 5, 2024, and mailed it to Defendant on January 6, 2024. The employee suggested Defendant might pay something to “make it right”. 21. Upon information and belief, the original loan was rejected by the lender, but Defendant chose to lie to Plaintiffs rather than disclose this fact. 22. On January 26, 2024, Gates and Hartington received a letter in the mail from Volkswagen Financial Services stating the first payment on the Jetta was due on February 12, 2024. 23. Gates’ father called Defendant to ask why the first payment was now due more than four (4) months earlier than agreed to in the contract. 24. Defendant’s employee told Gates’ father to check his email, which he did and saw for the first time a new set of purchase documents existed. This new set was not signed by Gates or Hartington, but contained forged signatures and new terms not agreed to by Plaintiffs, including a first payment date of February 12, 2024. 25. Hartington is employed by the Internal Revenue Service and her job can be negatively impacted by any credit discrepancies, so Gates and Hartington are being forced to make all monthly payments to Volkswagen Financial Services to keep from damaging Hartington’s credit rating and employment. Further, Defendant made hard credit inquiries on Hartington’s credit on January 2, 2024 and on January 9, 2024, both after Defendant had represented Plaintiffs’ loan was approved. 26. On or about February 6, 2024, Gates’ father flew to Oklahoma to visit with Defendant’s employees and ask about the changes to the contract and about the forgeries. At the meeting Defendant’s employees claimed the original documents signed by Plaintiffs were lost or destroyed. The employees then stated (1) the second set of documents were signed by an unknown customer, (2) the unknown customer’s signatures were “imposed” on the wrong car deal, (3) Plaintiffs’ signatures “got stuck in the system”, and/or (4) the “signatures got over-lapped”, but that the employees were not sure what happened. 27. Upon information and belief, all of Defendant’s statements about the documents were fabricated to disguise the fact the original loan was not finalized and Defendant’s employees altered the terms of the purchase agreement and then forged Plaintiffs’ signatures. 28. At all times relative to the subject matter of this lawsuit, Defendant’s employees acted on its behalf, and these actions were performed in the normal course and scope of employment. 29. All of Defendant’s employees interacted with Plaintiffs as they were trained and/or instructed by Defendant. 30. Defendant negligently supervised its employees, allowing them to harm Plaintiffs. 31. Defendant’s actions caused money damages to Plaintiffs. 32. Defendant’s actions caused stress, emotional damage and physical injury to Plaintiffs. 33. Defendant’s actions amount to fraud, fraudulent inducement, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and violation of the Truth-In-Lending Act. 34. Defendant's actions amount to gross negligence and/or intentional conduct, and as such warrant the imposition of punitive damages. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray for judgment against the defendant, for actual and punitive damages, both in an amount in excess of the amount required for federal diversity jurisdiction, for fraud, fraudulent inducement, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence and violation of the Truth-In-Lending Act regarding a vehicle purchase by the plaintiffs, all separately, jointly and in the alternative, plus attorney fees, interest and costs. ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Kevin Bennett, OBA #14185 414 NW 4th Street, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 272-0303 (phone) [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs