Taura Jacob v. SK609 LLC, d/b/a Kalidy Kia

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA TAURA JACOB, ) ) Plaintiff, vs. SK609 LLC, d/b/a Kalidy Kia, ) Defendant. FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY Case No. FEB 23 2026 RICK WARREN COURT CLERK 109 PETITION COMES NOW the plaintiff, Taura Jacob, and for her Petition against the defendant, SK609, LLC, d/b/a Kalidy Kia, states as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Taura Jacob (hereafter "Jacob") is a resident of Garfield County, Oklahoma. 2. Defendant, SK609, LLC, d/b/a Kalidy Kia (hereafter "Kalidy"), is a domestic limited liability company, with its registered service agent located in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma; Kalidy sells vehicles to residents of the State of Oklahoma, including Oklahoma County. 3. The matter sued upon herein occurred primarily in Oklahoma County. 4. Kalidy has sufficient contacts with the State of Oklahoma to warrant the exercise of in-personam jurisdiction by this Court over it; 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 5. This action by Jacob is to recover actual, statutory, and punitive damages for fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligence, violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (Title 15 O.S. § 751 et seq.) and the tort of outrage, regarding a vehicle purchase by Jacob from Kalidy whereby Kalidy sold an extended warranty product to Plaintiff but never remitted the purchase money to the extended warranty provider, which negated the purchase of the extended warranty. CONSUMER PROTECTION RULES THAT MUST BE FOLLOWED 6. A car dealer must be truthful with its customers to protect them from harm. 7. A car dealer must follow the laws of Oklahoma to protect others from harm. 8. A car dealer must properly train and supervise its employees to protect others from harm. 9. A car dealer must remit extended warranty purchase funds to the warranty provider when the car dealer has been paid for the purchase. FACTS 10. On or about February 1, 2025, Jacob drove from Enid, Oklahoma, to visit Kalidy’s business in Edmond, Oklahoma, to purchase a used motor vehicle, specifically a 2020 Mercedes Benz GLA 250 SUV with VIN WDDGF4HB6CA604635 (hereafter “the Vehicle”). 11. Kalidy’s employees represented to Jacob that she could buy an extended warranty on the Vehicle to cover the costs of expensive future repairs for the purchase price of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) (hereafter “the Purchase Price”). 12. Jacob agreed to buy the extended warranty product. 13. Kalidy’s employees presented a document titled “GOLD STANDARD AUTOMOTIVE NETWORK – SERVICE CONTRACT DECLARATIONS PAGE” identified as “Agreement #BRNZ1003360B” (hereafter “the Warranty”) to Plaintiff. The Warranty was to be sold by Gold Standard Automotive Network (hereafter “the Provider”). 14. Kalidy received the Purchase Price in full after Plaintiff’s lender remitted the purchase loan proceeds to it (hereafter “the Purchase Proceeds”). 15. Upon information and belief, Kalidy’s employees never paid the Purchase Proceeds to the Provider. 16. Kalidy’s employees either intentionally or negligently failed to remit the Purchase Proceeds to the Provider. This fact was not known to Plaintiff. 17. In late May 2025, Plaintiff received a letter from the Provider advising her that her extended warranty was cancelled because Kalidy never remitted the Purchase Proceeds, despite attempted contact by the Provider. After receiving the letter Plaintiff contacted Kalidy and spoke with three (3) employees of Kalidy, who all told her it would be handled. Specifically, in August 2025, an employee named Brook Steely, told Plaintiff, “I will get this to Sabih and let you know.” To date, Plaintiff has not received any contact at all from Defendant. 18. On February 1, 2025, during the signing of the original paperwork at Kalidy’s dealership, Kalidy’s employees presented multiple documents to Jacob for her to sign. During the initial signing pen and paper were used. As each document was presented to Jacob, Kalidy’s employee made generic summary statements about what the document represented. The employee presented the paperwork in a hurried fashion. Specific Fraudulent Inducement Allegations as to the Arbitration Provisions (A) VEHICLE BUYER’S ORDER (VBO) Kalidy’s employee presented this document by saying, “This is our Buyer’s Order. It basically just shows you the amount you are paying for the Mercedes, $24,780.00, and your extended warranty is $3,000.00, and here’s your GAP. If these numbers look right, then initial here (indicated on the first page) and here (indicated on the second page), and sign here and here (also indicated on the second page). Then the employee said, “Initial these last two pages.” Jacob initialed four times and signed two times where Kalidy’s employee had previously marked with a hi-liter pen. Jacob did not read the document, but relied on the employee’s statements about what the document meant, specifically she signed because the numbers looked right. (B) RETAIL INSTALLMENT SALE CONTRACT (RISC) Kalidy’s employee next presented this document by saying, “This is our Contract. The only thing you need to know on this one is that it shows your interest rate, the total cost of your loan, seventy-two payments at $673.18 per month, and that your first payment is due on April 3, 2025. Jacob did not read the document, but relied on the employee’s statements about what the document meant, specifically that she only needed to know the details of the loan. Kalidy’s employee later cancelled the first set of papers by presenting a digital version of the RISC and told Jacob to sign electronically on her cell phone. The employee stated, “This is the same as the original you signed. Nothing has changed except the date.” Jacob did not read the document, because she relied on the employee’s prior statements about the document, specifically that it was the same as the first set. (C) ARBITRATION AGREEMENT Kalidy’s employee presented this document by saying, “This is one of our form documents, but it isn’t important. It’s just required for us to get a signature.” Jacob did not read the document because the employee said it was not important. The verbal representations made by Kalidy’s employees in Paragraphs A, B & C above amounted to fraudulent inducement of the arbitration provisions only. 19. Kalidy’s employee never mentioned the word arbitration during the closing process, Jacob did not read or notice anything about arbitration and Jacob did not know what the term arbitration meant. Kallidy’s employee gave Jacob the mental impression, through her words, that arbitration was not important. 20. Jacob did not knowingly agree to the terms of any of Kalidy’s arbitration provisions and did not knowingly agree to waive her constitutional right to a jury trial and did not knowingly agree to share any of the costs associated with arbitration. Jacob cannot afford to pay the costs associated with arbitration. 21. The words and manner in which the arbitration provisions were presented gave Jacob the mental impression she was signing the Buyer’s Order and the RISC because she agreed with the numbers, and nothing else. 22. The statements made by Kalidy’s employee were false and incomplete explanations of the terms contained in the arbitration provisions and therefore amounted to fraudulent inducement. (Plaintiff is not seeking independent damages for “fraudulent inducement,” but rather is seeking to void all arbitration provisions due to Defendant’s actions in obtaining Plaintiff’s signatures on these provisions. Plaintiff is seeking damages for “fraud” and not for “fraudulent inducement”. ) 23. At all times relative to the subject matter of this lawsuit, Kalidy’s employees were acting on its behalf, and these actions were performed in the normal course and scope of employment, and Kalidy’s employees interacted with Jacob as they were trained and/or instructed by Kalidy. 24. Kalidy negligently supervised its employees, allowing them to harm Jacob. 25. Kalidy’s actions have caused money damages to Jacob. 26. Kalidy’s actions have caused stress and emotional injury to Jacob. 27. Kalidy’s actions amount to fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligence, violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, and the tort of outrage, regarding an extended warranty purchased by Jacob. 28. Kalidy’s actions were in violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act and allow Jacob to recover attorney fees and costs. 29. Kalidy’s actions amount to gross negligence and/or intentional conduct, and as such warrant the imposition of punitive damages. CAUSES OF ACTION FRAUD 30. Jacob incorporates Paragraphs 1 to 29 herein by reference. 31. Kalidy informed Jacob she was purchasing an extended warranty for the price of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00); Kalidy’s employees took the purchase money from Jacob but did not pay the Provider, leaving Jacob without coverage. 32. Kalidy informed Jacob she would have “peace of mind” by buying the Warranty; Kalidy’s representation was false because Kalidy never sent the Purchase Proceeds to the Provider which voided the extended warranty. 33. Kalidy willfully and knowingly hid and/or disguised these facts from Jacob, causing harm to her. Kalidy failed to inform Jacob that Kalidy never remitted the Purchase Proceeds to the Provider. 34. It has been more than a year since Plaintiff purchased the extended warranty and Kalidy has kept her purchase money ($3,000.00) this entire time, while Plaintiff has paid interest through her loan. 35. Upon information and belief, Kalidy’s actions were not an isolated event, but rather were consistent with approved company-wide practices or policies which reward and encourage the systematic pattern and practice of selling extended warranties to Oklahoma consumers without remitting purchase proceeds to providers, which amounts to increased financial benefit to Kalidy justifying disgorgement of its unjust enrichment; Kalidy’s actions amount to fraud. NEGLIGENCE 36. Jacob incorporates Paragraphs 1 to 35 herein by reference. 37. Kalidy owed a duty to Jacob to protect her from its employees lying to her during its sale of the Extended Warranty, and from its employees failing to remit the Purchase Proceeds to the Provider. 38. Kalidy breached that duty by negligently allowing its employee(s) to lie to Jacob and/or by negligently failing to remit the Purchase Proceeds to the Provider. 39. Upon information and belief, Kalidy’s actions were not an isolated event, but rather were consistent with approved company-wide practices or policies which reward and encourage the systematic pattern and practice of selling extended warranties to Oklahoma consumers while not remitting purchase proceeds to providers, which amounts to an increased financial benefit to Kalidy justifying disgorgement of its unjust enrichment; Kalidy's actions amount to negligence. VIOLATION OF OKLAHOMA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 40. Jacob incorporates Paragraphs 1 to 38 herein by reference. 41. The Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act declares it unlawful for a business to make a false or misleading representation as to the approval and/or as to the subject matter of a consumer transaction. 42. Kalidy's employees falsely informed Jacob the Warranty would be purchased upon receipt of the Purchase Proceeds. Kalidy's employees repeatedly told Plaintiff they would fix the problem, though they never did so. These promises were false and amount to a violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act. 43. The Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act provides for actual damages and costs of litigation including reasonable attorney's fees. TORT OF OUTRAGE 44. Jacob incorporates Paragraphs 1 to 43 herein by reference. 45. The conduct of Kalidy and its employees is intentional and is so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community and warrants the imposition of actual and punitive damages. 46. Kalidy's actions amount to the tort of outrage. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays for judgment against the defendant, for actual and punitive damages, both in an amount in excess of the amount required for federal diversity jurisdiction ($75,000.00), for fraud, negligence, violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, and the tort of outrage, regarding an extended warranty purchase by the plaintiff, all separately, jointly and in the alternative, plus punitive damages, attorney fees, interest and costs. ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED [signature] Kevin Bennett, OBA #14185 THE BENNETT LAW FIRM 414 NW 4th Street, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 272-0303 [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF