Dayton, OH
Lemon law Lawyer at Dayton, OH
Practice Areas: Lemon Law, Consumer Protection
OUTCOME: Consumers won at trial; Jury awarded $500,000 verdict in consumers' favor. Winnebago paid attorney fees and costs.
Defective $125,000 motorcoach case with slide out room and other numerous defects. Court claims included for breach of warranties.
OUTCOME: Consumer Won on Retrial; Merchant's 2nd Appeal Pending
Motor vehicle sales fraud case involving a used motor vehicle, the novel question on appeal was whether a car dealer who refused to defend a court case still had the right to a court hearing on the dam ... ages that were caused to the consumer.
OUTCOME: Case Settled
(2011, Ohio Clermont Co Common Pleas Court), 2011-Ohio-6946 (certifying a class action under Ohio’s CSPA statute involving allegations of class-wide false representations and marketing practices by Chi ... nese manufacturer and its American importer and its dealers regarding the sale of imported Chinese motorcycles, the court examined in detail every requirement for class action certification, resulting in 55 West Reporter headnotes and the court’s finding that the lawyers at Burdge Law Office had “extensive experience in the field of consumer law and specifically the Consumer Sales Practices Act” at Para. 46).
OUTCOME: Consumer Won
deciding that (1) a party does not need to make a Civil Rule 52 request for findings of fact and conclusions of law to obtain specific findings on the trial court’s fee decision in a fee motion under ... the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and (2) when determining the amount of attorney fees to award under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, a trial court is required to set forth its methodology with sufficient specificity for its basis that a meaningful appellate review can be conducted
OUTCOME: Case Pending as of 051712
(2011, Ohio Clermont Co Common Pleas Court), 2011-Ohio-948 (interpreting the application of Ohio’s CSPA class action requirements, as established by Marrone v Philip Morris USA, to alleged false repres ... entations and marketing practices by Chinese manufacturer and its American importer and its dealers regarding the sale of imported Chinese motorcycles).
OUTCOME: Consumer Won
(2010, Ohio 5th Dist CA), 2010-Ohio-6654 (upholding award of over $159,000 for attorney fees in prosecuting Rv lemon law case through verdict; standard for appellate review of attorney fee decision is ... abuse of discretion; affirming application of attorney fee factors in Bitter v Tri-County Toyota, 58 Ohio St.3d 143)
OUTCOME: Consumer prevailed
Novel case of first impression determining the extent of an innocent lender's liability for defunct seller's claims and defenses under 16 CFR 433, the FTC Holder Rule; lemon motorhome built by defunct ... California company, sold by defunct Rv dealer, judgment awarded against both of them; legal issue was the extent of the bank's liability for that judgment.
OUTCOME: Consumer Prevailed in Settlement
One of several dozen wrecked car cases involving the resale by State Farm Insurance Co. of cars that had been totaled out in insurance claims without branding the vehicles as "salvage." The vehicles we ... re subsequently rebuilt and resold to consumers by other middlemen and used car dealers. In pretrial motions, and contrary to several other trial court decisions, the court here held that a Consumer Act claim can not be stated against an insurance company but other claims could.
OUTCOME: Plaintiff Won, Affirmed on Appeal
This auto fraud sales case involved both the dealer and the manufacturer and a lemon that was replaced through allegedly extortionate means on the consumer, forcing them to sign documents they did not ... want to sign or to leave the dealership with no car at all (not even the one they came in with). Appeals court affirmed the verdict and the trial court's decision allowing an expert to testify on car dealer sales terminology and tactics and upholding a punitive damage ratio of $840 actual damages to $35,000 punitive damages, plus substantial attorney fees assessed against the manufacturer and dealer.
OUTCOME: Consumer Won Appeal; Consumer Won at Trial.
Court of appeals ruled for the consumer-plaintiff, holding the car dealer's binding arbitration clause and arbitration process was unconscionable because it misleads a consumer and fails to disclose ma ... terial terms of the arbitration process. Consumer later won at trial.