You're viewing Docket Item 77 from the case Lau v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case3:11-cv-01940-MEJ Document77 Filed03/12/13 Page1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

DON LAU,

v.

Plaintiff,

MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC,
Defendant.

_____________________________________/



No. C 11-01940 MEJ
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

The Court has reviewed Defendant’s Supplemental Brief regarding whether the subject
vehicle qualifies as a consumer good and whether Plaintiff has standing under the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act to proceed with his claim, as well as Plaintiff’s response. Dkt. Nos. 71, 73.
In advance of the status conference set in this matter, the Court now poses the following questions to
Plaintiff.
1.

Plaintiff disclosed the “possibility” of a sixth “personal use vehicle” registered to “Don Lau or
DT Floormasters, Inc.” in Interrogatory Nos. 32 to 39, but stated he was unable to find the
registration to confirm how any such sixth vehicle may have been registered. Based on these
responses, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has had six vehicles registered to DT Floormasters
during the time period identified in the Interrogatories. What is the accurate number of
vehicles registered to “Don Lau or DT Floormasters, Inc.” for each of the time periods
identified in Interrogatory Nos. 32 to 39?

2.

Plaintiff asserts that “the relevant time period for counting how many vehicles are registered
should be at the time of initial purchase.” What is Plaintiff’s authority for this statement?




T
T
R
R
U
U
O
O
C
C
T
T
C
C
I
I
R
R
T
T
S
S
I
I
D
D
S
S
E
E
T
T
A
A
T
T
S
S
D
D
E
E
T
T
I
I
N
N
U
U







a
a
i
i
n
n
r
r
o
o
f
f
i
i
l
l
a
a
C
C



f
f
o
o






t
t
c
c
i
i
r
r
t
t
s
s
i
i
D
D
n
n
r
r
e
e
h
h
t
t
r
r
o
o
N
N


e
e
h
h
t
t


r
r
o
o
F
F

Case3:11-cv-01940-MEJ Document77 Filed03/12/13 Page2 of 2

3.

4.

Plaintiff asserts that the Court should “only consider those vehicles that are primarily used for
business purposes” in considering whether and how many vehicles apply towards the “not
more than five motor vehicles” registered to DT Floormasters, Inc. What authority does
Plaintiff have to support this construction of the statue?

Has Plaintiff completed the filing of his revised corporate and personal income tax statements
for the years 2007 to 2012 such that the subject Mercedes vehicle is now reflected as a
personal-use vehicle? If so, how is the vehicle currently registered and titled?

Plaintiff shall file a brief responding to each of these questions by March 15, 2013. Defendant

may file a response by March 19, 2013, but such response is optional.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2013

_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
United States Magistrate Judge

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2




T
T
R
R
U
U
O
O
C
C
T
T
C
C
I
I
R
R
T
T
S
S
I
I
D
D
S
S
E
E
T
T
A
A
T
T
S
S
D
D
E
E
T
T
I
I
N
N
U
U







a
a
i
i
n
n
r
r
o
o
f
f
i
i
l
l
a
a
C
C



f
f
o
o






t
t
c
c
i
i
r
r
t
t
s
s
i
i
D
D
n
n
r
r
e
e
h
h
t
t
r
r
o
o
N
N


e
e
h
h
t
t


r
r
o
o
F
F