Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wynn Holdings, LLC v. Rolls-Royce Motor Cars NA, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 19, 2019

WYNN HOLDINGS, LLC, a Montana limited liability company, Plaintiff,
ROLLS-ROYCE MOTOR CARS NA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; TOWBIN MOTOR CARS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; DOES I through X, inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, Defendants.




         Before the Court are Defendant Rolls-Royce Motor Cars NA, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 57, and Defendant Towbin Motor Cars, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 63. Plaintiff Wynn Holdings, LLC opposed both motions, ECF No. 72, and Defendants both filed responses, ECF Nos. 78, 79.


         Plaintiff sued Defendants in state court on December 6, 2016. ECF No. 1-2. Defendant Rolls-Royce removed the matter to this Court on January 13, 2017. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 2, 2017. ECF No. 10. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges six claims: (1) a violation of Nevada's Lemon Law, NRS 597.600 et seq.; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) breach of express warranty; (5) violation of Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices Act; and (6) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Id. Both Defendants now move for summary judgment through separate motions. ECF Nos. 57, 63. The Court heard oral argument on the motions on January 15, 2019. ECF Nos. 94, 96.


         a. Undisputed facts

         The Court finds the following facts to be undisputed. This matter centers on the purchase of an allegedly faulty, pre-owned 2012 Rolls-Royce Ghost EW. Defendant Rolls-Royce advertises a certified pre-owned promise for selected pre-owned vehicles, referred to as Provenance collection, on its website. The Provenance promise includes Defendant Rolls-Royce's guaranty to “thoroughly check the motor car's history and mileage, to ensure its integrity.” Defendant Towbin identifies as a certified dealer of Defendant Rolls-Royce's vehicles.

         Mehdi Khorasani (a nonparty but a member of Plaintiff Wynn Holdings, LLC) purchased the vehicle from Defendant Towbin on June 6, 2015. The vehicle was pre-owned. But at the time Khorasani purchased the vehicle, the vehicle fell under the original new vehicle warranty.

         From July 2015 to October 2016, Paul Edalat (a nonparty but also a member of Plaintiff Wynn Holdings, LLC) took the vehicle in for service, maintenance, and repairs to either Rolls-Royce of Orange County or to Defendant Towbin. The vehicle was unavailable to Plaintiff for over one hundred days, combined, during this time due to necessary repairs.

         On December 30, 2015, after the vehicle had been repaired multiple times for issues related to shaking during acceleration, Edalat contacted Laura Vaughan at Defendant Rolls-Royce. After Vaughan confirmed the current registration of the vehicle was not in Khorasani's name, Vaughan continued to correspond with Edalat regarding repairs over the next six months. Edalat informed Vaughan of the multiple repairs required due to the vehicle shaking during acceleration. He also reported to her that the shaking “still exists” and further repair was required.

         Sometime within the first year of the purchase, Jenevieve Aldivar from Rolls-Royce of Orange County informed Edalat that the vehicle had previously been in an accident. This was the first time Edalat was informed of the accident history. Khorasani then emailed Defendant Towbin to obtain the documentation from the prior accident. Defendant Towbin denied the request.

         After the first year of service and through July 2016, Edalat continued to communicate with Vaughan. He brought the vehicle in for the last service and repair attempted under the warranty on July 9, 2016, which lasted until August 12, 2016. Edalat continued to communicate with Saldivar during this time. He also exchanged text messages with an advisor by the last name of Garrison. Garrison informed Edalat that Defendant Towbin performed significant engine and transmission repairs during the last service conducted under warranty.

         On October 30, 2016, the original new vehicle warranty expired. Plaintiff then sued Defendants on December 16, 2016.

         b. Disputed facts

          The parties dispute whether: Khorasani purchased the vehicle as an agent for Plaintiff or as an individual; Defendant Towbin sold the vehicle as a certified pre-owned vehicle rather than merely a used vehicle; Defendants intentionally failed to notify Plaintiff or Khorasani of the extensive history of accidents and repairs connected with the vehicle; Defendant Tobin ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.