CJ-2026-1014 - Nick Zavilla v. Howard-DCIII, LLC (d/b/a South Pointe Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram)

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: nobody expects their new (well, used) truck to fall apart before the ink dries on the financing paperwork. But Nick Zavilla didn’t just buy a lemon—he bought what can only be described as a mechanical crime scene, allegedly sold to him by a dealership that may have known exactly how busted it was. We’re talking duct tape on the air conditioning, repainted panels hiding who-knows-what, and a vehicle so unreliable it’s basically a rolling metaphor for betrayal. Now, Zavilla is suing South Pointe Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram in Tulsa County for $150,000—half in actual damages, half in punitive “you’ve-got-to-be-kidding-me” energy. And honestly? This case has all the drama of a reality TV showdown, minus the dramatic music… though we’ll add it in our heads.

So who are these people? On one side, you’ve got Nick Zavilla, a self-employed contractor living in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. His livelihood depends on having a reliable work vehicle—something that can haul tools, survive job sites, and, you know, actually start in the morning. He’s not asking for a luxury ride, just something that won’t leave him stranded or cost him jobs. On the other side? Howard-DCIII, LLC, doing business as South Pointe Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram—your classic big-box car dealership located at the very American intersection of 91st and Memorial in Tulsa. They’re the kind of place with flashy signs, free coffee, and salespeople who call you “buddy” while sliding paperwork across the desk. But according to Zavilla, South Pointe wasn’t just selling a truck—they were selling a fantasy.

Here’s how the whole mess went down. On October 2, 2025, Zavilla walks into South Pointe looking to upgrade his ride. He trades in his 2008 Nissan Titan—no spring chicken, but at least it ran—and walks out with a 2014 Dodge RAM 1500, paying $18,808 for it. Sounds like a fair deal, right? Except there’s one tiny detail: the truck was already falling apart. And not in some “oh, it needs new brakes” way. We’re talking transmission issues within days of purchase, air conditioning held together with duct tape, coolant leaks, engine corrosion, wiring problems, and evidence of repainting like someone tried to hide a vehicular felony. Oh, and the dealership promised they’d fix the door panel, A/C, and headlight before he drove off the lot. Did they? Nope. They used dirty, used parts, slapped them on like a rushed DIY project, and sent Zavilla on his way—into mechanical purgatory.

Zavilla brings the truck back multiple times. South Pointe tries to fix it. Or at least, they say they do. But the problems keep piling up. The truck never gets right. It’s not just inconvenient—it’s career-threatening. As a self-employed contractor, Zavilla needs his vehicle to get to jobs, carry equipment, and show up looking professional. But instead, he’s stuck without reliable transportation, missing gigs, and watching his income dry up. Eventually, he takes the RAM to an independent shop—Family Automotive Repair & Performance—for a Tier 3 Vehicle Inspection. That’s like the CSI of car diagnostics. And what do they find? A laundry list of serious, pre-existing issues that no honest seller should’ve let slide. The kicker? There’s “no credible evidence” that South Pointe didn’t already know about these problems when they sold the truck. Which raises a very loud, very important question: Did they sell him a dumpster fire on wheels… on purpose?

That brings us to why we’re in court. Zavilla isn’t just mad—he’s filing five separate legal claims, each one escalating like a courtroom mic drop. First up: Breach of Contract. Simple idea: you agree to sell a working truck, you deliver a working truck. They didn’t. Second: Breach of Express and Implied Warranties. Translation: when a dealership sells a vehicle, they’re promising it’s fit for normal use and in decent shape—what’s called “merchantable quality.” This truck? Not even close. Third: Violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act—basically, the state’s “don’t be a scammer” law. Zavilla claims South Pointe lied about the truck’s condition, hid known defects, and broke verbal promises about repairs. That’s not just bad business—it’s illegal. Fourth: Fraudulent Inducement. This one’s spicy. It means South Pointe allegedly lied to get Zavilla to buy the truck, knowing full well it was a disaster. And finally, the pièce de résistance: Punitive Damages. Zavilla isn’t just asking to be made whole—he wants to punish South Pointe for what he claims was reckless, intentional misconduct. He wants $75,000 in actual damages (for the truck, lost wages, emotional distress, etc.) and another $75,000 in punitive damages—because sometimes, justice needs a little extra oomph.

Now, is $150,000 a lot for a $18,800 truck? On paper, yes. But context matters. Zavilla isn’t just asking for the purchase price back. He’s claiming lost income, mental anguish, months of unusable transportation, and the cost of relying on a business that allegedly lied to him. And let’s not forget: punitive damages aren’t about compensation—they’re about sending a message. “Hey, car dealerships: if you’re going to sell junk vehicles with duct-taped AC units and pretend they’re road-ready, you might just get slapped with a six-figure penalty.” In that light, $75K in punitive damages starts to feel less like overkill and more like a warning shot across the bow of the used car industry.

Our take? Look, we’ve all had a bad car experience. Maybe a check engine light, a shady mechanic, a surprise repair bill. But this? This is next-level. A dealership promising repairs they never do, selling a truck with duct tape on the AC unit, and then offering to let the buyer trade it in for $10,000—after he already lost thousands—feels less like a business transaction and more like a con. The most absurd part? Not the duct tape (though that’s wild). It’s the sheer audacity of selling a vehicle with engine corrosion and electrical issues and acting surprised when it doesn’t work. And let’s be honest—how hard is it to run a basic inspection before slapping a price tag on a used truck? If South Pointe didn’t know the truck was a mess, they were grossly negligent. If they did know? Then this isn’t just a breach of contract—it’s a betrayal of basic consumer trust.

We’re not saying every dealership is out to get you. But cases like this are why people say “buyer beware.” Except here, the buyer was careful. He brought the truck in for repairs. He got a professional inspection. He tried to work with the seller. And still, he got screwed. So while $150,000 might sound steep, we’re rooting for Zavilla—not because he deserves a windfall, but because accountability matters. Especially when your air conditioner is held together with office supplies.

Case Overview

$150,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Donald E. Smolen, II

SMOLEN | LAW, PLLC

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$75,000 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Nick Zavilla individual
Rep: Donald E. Smolen, II, and Chris U. Brecht

Defendants

Howard-DCIII, LLC (d/b/a South Pointe Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram) business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	South Pointe sold Zavilla a defective vehicle, failed to repair it, and made false promises
2	Breach of Express and Implied Warranties	South Pointe breached warranties on the vehicle, causing Zavilla damages
3	Violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act	South Pointe engaged in deceptive trade practices, causing Zavilla harm
4	Fraudulent Inducement	South Pointe misrepresented the vehicle's condition, causing Zavilla to rely on false statements
5	Punitive Damages	Zavilla seeks punitive damages for South Pointe's reckless and intentional conduct

Petition Text

1,269 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NICK ZAVILLA, an Individual Plaintiff, v. HOWARD-DCIII, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, d/b/a SOUTH POINTE CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM, Defendant. Case No. CJ-2026-01014 ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED PETITION KELLY GREENOUGH COMES NOW the Plaintiff Nick Zavilla, through counsel, SMOLEN | LAW, PLLC, and for his causes of action against Defendant Howard-DCIII, LLC, doing business as South Pointe Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram ("South Pointe"), sets forth and states as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 1. Mr. Zavilla is a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 2. South Pointe is a foreign limited liability company, with its principal place of business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 3. The underlying facts and damages that are the subject of this dispute occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 4. This Court has jurisdiction, and venue is proper in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 5. Paragraphs 1-4 are incorporated herein by reference. 6. On or around October 2, 2025, Mr. Zavilla appeared at the South Pointe facility at 91st and Memorial, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to purchase a work vehicle. 7. Mr. Zavilla traded in a 2008 Nissan Titan to facilitate the purchase of a 2014 Dodge RAM 1500 pickup truck ("Truck") for a total price of $18,808.00. 8. There was no disclosure in the sale paperwork of any preexisting or known damage to the Truck. 9. As part of the transaction, South Pointe agreed to replace a door panel, repair the air-conditioning system, and change a headlight on the Truck. None of these repairs were performed in a workmanlike manner, and South Pointe utilized used, dirty, and substandard replacement parts. 10. Almost immediately after the transaction, Mr. Zavilla began experiencing serious issues with the Truck's operation, including the transmission. 11. Mr. Zavilla has taken the Truck back to South Pointe for repairs to the Truck; however, South Pointe either failed or was otherwise unable to get the Truck in operating condition. 12. Mr. Zavilla had the Truck taken to Family Automotive Repair & Performance for Tier 3 Vehicle Inspection, which revealed a multitude of serious damages to various portions of the Truck, including damages to the electrical system, exhaust and coolant leaks, engine corrosion, engine wiring issues, etc. 13. There is no credible evidence that South Pointe was unaware of some, or all, of the damage to the Truck at the time it sold it to Mr. Zavilla. 14. During the inspection, it was discovered, among other things, that someone had wrapped duct tape around the air conditioning unit and that various portions of the truck showed "evidence of repainting." 15. Mr. Zavilla has been without the Truck for several months and has missed out on employment opportunities as a self-employed contractor. 16. South Pointe has offered to allow Mr. Zavilla to trade the Truck back in on a subsequent transaction, with a value of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), which would result in Mr. Zavilla taking a massive financial hit. CAUSES OF ACTION Count I. Breach of Contract 17. Paragraphs 1-16 are incorporated herein by reference. 18. A valid and enforceable contract was formed between Mr. Zavilla and South Pointe, wherein South Pointe agreed to deliver a vehicle fit for ordinary use and free of significant defects. 19. South Pointe breached this contract by delivering a vehicle that was materially defective and unfit for ordinary use. 20. South Pointe further breached this contract by failing to cure the defects within a reasonable time. 21. As a direct result of South Pointe’s breach, Mr. Zavilla has suffered actual damages, including, but not limited to, the continued loss of use of the vehicle, the purchase price, interest, costs of alternative transportation, lost wages, mental anguish and emotional distress, diminished value, and related incidental damages, in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). Count II. Breach of Express and Implied Warranties 22. Paragraphs 1-21 are incorporated herein by reference. 23. South Pointe expressly warranted the Truck to be in good working order and impliedly warranted it as merchantable and fit for ordinary use. 24. The Truck was materially defective at the time of sale and was not fit for ordinary use. 25. South Pointe failed to repair the Truck within a reasonable time, constituting a breach of both express and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness. 26. As a direct result of South Pointe’s breach, Mr. Zavilla has suffered actual damages, including, but not limited to, the continued loss of use of the vehicle, the purchase price, interest, costs of alternative transportation, lost wages, mental anguish and emotional distress, diminished value, and related incidental damages, in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). Count III. Violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act 27. Paragraphs 1-26 are incorporated herein by reference. 28. South Pointe, in the course of its business, engaged in deceptive and unfair trade practices by: a. Misrepresenting the condition and reliability of the Truck; b. Failing to disclose known defects; and c. Refusing to honor its own verbal promises to Mr. Zavilla. 29. These acts and omissions were materially misleading, occurred in trade or commerce, and directly caused harm to Mr. Zavilla in violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, 15 O.S. §§751-764.1. 30. As a direct result, Mr. Zavilla has suffered actual damages, including, but not limited to, the continued loss of use of the vehicle, the purchase price, interest, costs of alternative transportation, lost wages, mental anguish and emotional distress, diminished value, and related incidental damages, in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). Count IV. Fraudulent Inducement 31. Paragraphs 1-30 are incorporated herein by reference. 32. South Pointe represented that the Truck was in good working order, reliable, and free from major mechanical defects, all of which constituted false material misrepresentations. 33. South Pointe either knew these representations were false or made them with reckless disregard for the truth. Alternatively, South Pointe had a duty to inspect the Truck and disclose any nonconformities and knowingly or recklessly failed to do so. 34. South Pointe made these misrepresentations with the intent to induce Mr. Zavilla to rely on them and purchase the Truck. 35. Mr. Zavilla reasonably relied on South Pointe’s misrepresentations and omissions in deciding to contract for the Truck. 36. Had Mr. Zavilla known the Truck’s true condition, he would not have purchased it. 37. As a direct result of South Pointe’s acts and/or omissions, Mr. Zavilla has suffered actual damages, including, but not limited to, the continued loss of use of the vehicle, the purchase price, interest, costs of alternative transportation, lost wages, mental anguish and emotional distress, diminished value, and related incidental damages, in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). Count V. Punitive Damages 38. Paragraphs 1-37 are incorporated herein by reference. 39. The intentional, wanton, and reckless conduct of South Pointe in disregard of Mr. Zavilla and others was conducted with full knowledge, in that South Pointe knew, or should have known, of the severe adverse consequences of its actions and/or omissions. 40. South Pointe’s actions and/or omissions constituted reckless disregard for Mr. Zavilla. 41. South Pointe’s actions and/or omissions were wrongful, culpable, and so egregious that punitive damages in a sum that exceeds Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) should be awarded against South Pointe to set an example to other similarly situated individuals that such inexcusable conduct will not be tolerated in our community. WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Mr. Zavilla prays that this Court grant her the relief sought, including, but not limited to, actual damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), punitive damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney fees, costs, and all other relief that the Court deems equitable. Respectfully submitted, SMOLEN | LAW, PLLC [signature] Donald E. Smolen, II, OBA #19944 Chris U. Brecht, OBA #22500 611 S. Detroit Ave. Tulsa, OK 74120 P: (918) 777-4LAW (4529) F: (918) 890-4529 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff