Dolce v. Certified Luxury Motors
1:25-cv-02150
S.D.N.Y.Apr 1, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs, acting pro se, sued Certified Luxury Motors (CLM), related entities, and individuals after buying a used Mercedes Benz, alleging fraud and concealment of vehicle defects and loan terms.
- Plaintiffs claim misrepresentations regarding the vehicle and financing, undisclosed defects that led to a dangerous tire blowout, improper credit use damaging a plaintiff’s credit, and failure to process vehicle registration.
- The lawsuit asserts claims under federal racketeering (RICO) laws, Truth in Lending Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and various NY state laws.
- Plaintiffs sought an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction, including business restrictions on defendants, evidence preservation, suspension of the loan, and expedited discovery.
- Magistrate Judge Lehrburger was referred the matter to issue a report and recommendation on the ex parte relief request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| TRO standard: irreparable harm | Plaintiffs face imminent risk: can't drive, financial harm, evidence may be destroyed | No imminent, irreparable harm | No irreparable harm shown; TRO denied |
| Past vs. ongoing harm | Car defects/proven tire blowout and registration issue threaten safety/finances ongoing | Harm is in the past or is speculative | No ongoing prospective harm alleged |
| Evidence preservation | Defendants may destroy/conceal evidence if notified of lawsuit | Defendants already on notice | Ex parte order won't further preserve |
| Ex parte relief allowed? | Immediate action needed to prevent harm and evidence destruction | Plaintiffs failed to show necessity | Denied; not warranted on current facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (sets four-prong standard for preliminary injunction including irreparable harm)
- North Am. Soccer League, LLC v. U.S. Soccer Fed’n, 883 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2018) (purpose of preliminary injunction)
- Faiveley Transp. Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp., 559 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009) (irreparable harm is required for injunction)
- Fujitsu Ltd. v. Fed. Express Corp., 247 F.3d 423 (2d Cir. 2001) (duty to preserve evidence arises upon threat of litigation)
- Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (litigation hold on evidence upon anticipating litigation)