Rife v. Randolf Ezrre Wholesale Auto Sales LLC

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedFebruary 7, 2022
Docket2:19-cv-04689
StatusUnknown

This text of Rife v. Randolf Ezrre Wholesale Auto Sales LLC (Rife v. Randolf Ezrre Wholesale Auto Sales LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rife v. Randolf Ezrre Wholesale Auto Sales LLC, (D. Ariz. 2022).

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Anthony Rife, No. CV-19-04689-PHX-DLR

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Randolf Ezrre Wholesale Auto Sales LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 16 On January 13, 2022, the Court held a bench trial in this matter. Below are the 17 Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. 18 I. Findings of Fact 19 1. Alpha and Omega Auto Sales LLC is wholly owned by Tiffany Wade. 20 2. Defendant Joshua Russell Moyano is married to Wade. 21 3. In 2018, Moyano worked for Alpha and Omega and Wade. 22 4. In March 2018, Moyano sold a 2007 Cadillac Escalade to Plaintiff Anthony Rife. 23 5. Rife learned about the Escalade through the on-line app Craigslist.com. 24 6. Rife called the phone number listed in the Craigslist advertisement. 25 7. Rife set up an appointment to inspect and test drive the Escalade at the parking lot 26 of an AutoZone store in Avondale, Arizona. 27 8. Rife met with Moyano to inspect the Escalade. 28 9. Moyano showed Rife all the options on the Escalade and represented to him that the 1 vehicle was in good shape. 2 10. Moyano also represented to Rife that the Escalade had a new engine and was in 3 good mechanical condition. 4 11. Moyano never told Rife that the odometer reading on the Escalade was not actual 5 miles. 6 12. Rife attempted to negotiate the asking price of $15,000, but Moyano would not take 7 less, telling Rife that was the amount of the money he had put into the vehicle. 8 13. Relying upon the representations made by Moyano, including the representations 9 that the odometer reading on the Escalade was actual miles, Rife agreed to pay 10 $15,000 to purchase the Escalade. 11 14. Rife and Moyano traveled in the Escalade to a shopping center selected by Moyano 12 where a third-party MVD store and a Wells Fargo Bank were located. 13 15. While Rife went to the Wells Fargo Bank to get the $15,000, Moyano went to the 14 MVD store. 15 16. Moyano told Rife to withdraw money in addition to the $15,000 to pay the licensing 16 and registration fees on the Escalade. 17 17. They both went back to the MVD store where they exchanged the money and the 18 title to the Escalade. 19 18. While at the counter, Rife completed the Title and Registration Application for the 20 Escalade. 21 19. Moyano completed and signed the back of the title transferring ownership to Rife. 22 20. Moyano also completed the odometer statement on the back of the title certifying 23 that the odometer reading was 135,740 actual miles, which was false. 24 21. On the face of the title, the mileage was listed as “135,740 B,” meaning that the 25 odometer reading was in excess of its mechanical limits, or that the odometer 26 reading was not accurate. 27 22. Moyano did not show the title to Rife until it was turned on the back side to be 28 signed. 1 23. Before completing the purchase of the vehicle, Rife did not see the front page of the 2 title. 3 24. The Secure Odometer Statement included in Moyano’s Answer, Exhibit 5 pg. 14 of 4 15, was not provided to Rife, and the signature purporting to be his signature is not 5 his. 6 25. Moyano personally and falsely represented the mileage on the Escalade to be 7 135,740 actual miles, when the previous title showed that the mileage was 184,431. 8 26. Moyano personally and falsely represented that the odometer reading was actual 9 miles, when he knew the title had been branded to indicate the odometer reading 10 was not actual. 11 27. Moyano’s false representations concerning the odometer mileage to Rife were made 12 with the intent to defraud Rife. 13 28. In 2019, Rife attempted to trade in the Escalade at several dealerships, none of which 14 would take it due to problems with the title. 15 29. Rife eventually took it to a buy-here pay-here dealership, which told him there was 16 an issue with the title and showed him a CarFax vehicle history report revealing that 17 the mileage prior to him purchasing the Escalade was 184,431 miles. 18 30. As a result of Moyano’s actions, Rife was damaged in the amount of $12,000, the 19 difference between what he paid for the Escalade and what it was worth. 20 31. Moyano knew that the odometer disclosure provided to Rife was false. 21 32. Moyano knew that Rife would rely on the odometer certifications and 22 representations provided to him. 23 33. Rife in fact relied upon the representations concerning the odometer reading and the 24 mileage provided by Moyano in deciding to purchase the Escalade. 25 34. Rife would not have purchased the Escalade had he known that the odometer had 26 been altered and that the odometer did not reflect the actual miles. 27 35. Rife would not have purchased the Escalade had he known that the title to the 28 Escalade was branded as a “Box B” vehicle, meaning not actual mileage. 1 36. Rife would not have purchased the Escalade knowing it had more than 184,431 2 miles at the time he purchased it. 3 37. Due to the branded title, and the rollback, the Escalade at the time Rife purchased it 4 was worth no more than $3,000. 5 38. Rife has been damaged in the amount of $12,000 because of Moyano’s violations 6 of the Odometer Act. 7 II. Conclusions of Law 8 1. Congress passed the Odometer Act in 1972, amended it in 1976, 1986, 1988, 1990, 9 and 1998, and recodified it in 1994. Congress’ intent in passing the Act was to 10 prevent odometer tampering, and to provide other general safeguards for the 11 protection of consumers. 49 U.S.C. § 32701. Being a remedial statute, the Act is 12 to be broadly construed in order to effectuate its consumer protection purposes. 13 Hughs v. Box, 814 F.2d 498, 501 (8th Cir. 1987). 14 2. The Odometer Act has five substantive provisions relating to odometers: 15 a. The Act prohibits odometer tampering. 16 b. The Act establishes procedures to follow when a motor vehicle repair results 17 in a change in the odometer reading. 18 c. The Act requires, each time a vehicle is transferred, that the transferor 19 disclose the odometer reading and whether the odometer reading is accurate, 20 has exceeded its mechanical limits, or is inaccurate. 21 d. The Act prohibits false statements in conjunction with the disclosures. 22 e. The Act prohibits parties from conspiring to violate any of the Act’s 23 provisions. 24 3. A person transferring ownership of a motor vehicle shall give the buyer a specific 25 written disclosure concerning the odometer mileage. The written disclosure must 26 be signed by the transferor and transferee, and among other statements must include 27 “(1) the odometer reading at the time of transfer. . .” and “the transferor’s 28 certification that ‘to the best of his knowledge the odometer reading reflects the 1 actual mileage; (2) the odometer reading reflects the amount of mileage in excess 2 of the designated mechanical odometer limit’; or (3) the odometer reading does not 3 reflect the actual mileage, and should not be relied upon.” Shaghoian v. Aghajani, 4 228 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1111 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (quoting 49 C.F.R. § 580.5). 5 4. A person transferring ownership of a motor vehicle may not give a false statement 6 to the transferee in making this disclosure. 49 U.S.C. § 32705(a)(2). Disclosure of 7 the vehicle’s cumulative mileage must be made to the transferee in writing on the 8 title. 49 C.F.R. § 580.5(c).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Glendale Owens v. Samkle Automotive Inc.
425 F.3d 1318 (Eleventh Circuit, 2005)
Bodine v. Graco, Inc.
533 F.3d 1145 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Williams v. Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.
655 F. Supp. 1081 (E.D. Louisiana, 1987)
Jones v. Fenton Ford, Inc.
427 F. Supp. 1328 (D. Connecticut, 1977)
A.J.'s Automotive Sales, Inc. v. Freet
725 N.E.2d 955 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2000)
Shaghoian v. Aghajani
228 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (C.D. California, 2002)
Farmers' Union Grain Co. v. Hallet & Carey Co.
22 F.2d 796 (Eighth Circuit, 1927)
Tusa v. Omaha Auto Auction Inc.
712 F.2d 1248 (Eighth Circuit, 1983)
Haynes v. Manning
917 F.2d 450 (Tenth Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rife v. Randolf Ezrre Wholesale Auto Sales LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rife-v-randolf-ezrre-wholesale-auto-sales-llc-azd-2022.