Lawsuit (Sanchez v. Luxury Haus) Filed Against The Luxury Haus And Its Owner Antonio Gutierrez Alleging Business Corruption, Consumer Fraud, Misrepresentation, Racketeering Influence And Corruption (RICO), And Other Claims In Connection With The Sale And Financing Of A Motor Vehicle
We filed a lawsuit (Sanchez v. Luxury Haus et al) against Luxury Haus, Inc. and its owner, Antonio Guiterrez, and Ally Financial on behalf of a client who purchased and financed a motor vehicle through Luxury. The suit alleges, inter alia, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Fraud, Criminal Theft by Deception, Criminal Deceptive Business Practices, etc. The allegations, as filed in court, include, but not limited to as follows:
•The Luxury Haus, Inc. is located at 335 Grand Avenue, Leonia.
•Antonio Gutierrez owns Luxury Haus, Inc., Luxury Haus of Leonia, Luxury Haus of Linden, Luxury Haus46, Benz and Beemers, etc.
•Ally Financial Inc. is the bank that financed the plaintiff’s auto loan.
•The advertisement also states that “Cash price may vary. Any and all differences must be addressed prior to the sale of this vehicle.”
•However, the above language violates the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Advertisement Practices because a dealer is not permitted to advertised a vehicle with a lower price and then charge a higher price at the dealership. This is called “bait and switch” scheme
•The advertisement also states that “DEALER makes no representations, expressed or implied, to any actual or prospective purchaser or owner of this vehicle as to the existence, ownership, accuracy, description or condition of the listed vehicle's equipment, accessories, price, specials or any warranties.
•However, the above language violates the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Advertisement Practices, which does not permit a dealer to advertise a vehicle then in that same advertisement create an exception for the dealer to violate the law.
•New Jersey Motor Vehicle Advertisement Practices provides that “[i]n any advertisement in which an advertiser offers a … vehicle for sale at an advertised price”… the automobile dealer must include a “statement that ‘price(s) included all costs to be paid by a consumer, except licensing costs, registration fees, and taxes.’” (Bold and italics added).
•At the time she purchased the vehicle from Luxury, plaintiff was only 21 years old.
•Luxury gave the 21-year-old plaintiff $7000 as a trade-in value for a car worth over $10,000.
•Luxury charged the $1,295 for “Processing for IAFLP,” which in an illegal charge.
•LUXURY also charged the plaintiff $399 for “Doc Fee,” without providing an itemized breakdown in writing on the sales contract, in violation of the Motor Vehicle Sales Practices.
•LUXURY also falsely charged the plaintiff $199 for motor vehicle registration, when the registration fees in the State of New Jersey is $85.
•LUXURY also charged the plaintiff $299 for “ETCH” “processing,” which is an illegal charge.
•At the time of sale, the vehicle had 43,447 miles on the odometer, but the LUXURY’s advertisement listed the vehicle with a mileage of 41,152, a difference of 2295.
•Luxury sold the plaintiff a Service Contract warranty called Repair Advantage Contract for $3,453.00, which plaintiff did not ask or need.
•The lawsuit alleges that LUXURY AND GUTIERREZ’s advertisement is simply a bait and switch scheme, which is the backbone of the defendants’ deceptive business practices.
•The lawsuit alleges LUXURY AND GUTIERREZ’s charging of the above fees s constitute deceptive business practices in violation of New Jersey Criminal Code 2C:21-7(h) (Deceptive Business Practices), a fourth degree crime, by making “… a false or misleading written statement for the purpose of obtaining property or credit…
•The lawsuit alleges LUXURY AND GUTIERREZ’s charging the above fees constitute theft by deception in violation ofNew Jersey Criminal Code 2C:20-4)(theft by Deception), a third degree crime, which prohibits any person from obtaining any property by deception if he “purposely… [c]reates or reinforces a false impression, including false impressions as to law, value, intention or other state of mind…” or “[p]revents another from acquiring information which would affect his judgment of a transaction…”
•The Lawsuit alleges LUXURY AND GUTIERREZ’s violated the New Jersey Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Act (RICO).
•Similar cases were filed against Luxury, including Cuevas v. Luxury Haus, filed in Superior Court, Bergen County; Amin v. Luxury Haus, filed in Superior Court, Bergen County; Gullenta v. Luxury Haus, filed in Superior Court, Monmouth County; Hozman v. Luxury Haus, filed in Superior Court, Bergen County.
The suit alleges that LUXURY and ANTONIO GUTIERREZ engages in wide-spread business corruption, fraud, deception, misrepresentation and dishonesty in violation of the aforementioned statutes, as well as the CFA, and the New Jersey civil RICO statute.
•The suit alleges that LUXURY and ANTONIO GUTIERREZ devised a business scheme to have its customers sign documents without providing a copy of the documents; having customers sign documents without advising them what they are signing.
If you are a victim of any type of consumer fraud with this or any other business, don’t hesitate to call us for a free consultation.
Call or text us for a Free Initial Personalized Evaluation or emailus your inquiry