Not resolved
3 comments

Class Action Law Suit against DSC

Dealers of California plans to file a Class Action law suit in the amount of 2 billion dollars.

California Dealers are requesting for the courts to prosecute DSC corporate offices to the extent of the law. If convicted officers could rack up to one year in prison.

If you have information about DSC doing business as a California Lender Please contact Mike at 818 749 3288 or e mail your complaint to supermgauto@charter.net

dead line is May 26, 2009

you may be entitled to a settlement of millions of dollars, Call Now!!!

Had an Experience with Dealer Services Corporation?

Write a review

Comments

Terms of Service
Post Comment
Cancel
Anonymous
#65417

What were you thinking Tom.

MR. NORMANDIN: May I proceed, your Honor?

11 THE COURT: You may.

12

13 DIRECT EXAMINATION

14 BY MR. NORMANDIN:

15 Q Mr. Grissom, who is your current employer?

16 A I'm self-employed.

17 Q Doing what, sir?

18 A I do special events for dealerships all

19 over the United States.

20 Q And do you provide any consulting services

21 to dealerships?

22 A For advertising.

23 Q Just for advertising. Do you provide

24 consulting services to attorneys?

25 A I do not.

331

1 Q Okay. Have you assisted in any way in the

2 preparation of the complaint that we're here today

3 at involving Mr. Flores against Dealer Services?

4 MR. CHAPMAN: Your Honor, I object. Relevance.

5 Work product.

6 THE COURT: Yeah. Let's have an offer of proof

7 on this.

8 MR. NORMANDIN: Yes, your Honor. It is our

9 contention or our belief rather that this gentleman

10 is the real perpetrator of the claim against Dealer

11 Services.

12 THE COURT: What do you mean "perpetrator"?

13 MR. NORMANDIN: He has encouraged the action

14 against Dealer Services. He...

15 some fashion. And I intend to inquire on that

16 issue.

17 THE COURT: How is that relevant?

18 MR. NORMANDIN: That the real party in interest

19 is not the Floreses, but Mr. Grissom. The court

20 should know that.

21 THE COURT: What do you mean not the real party

22 in interest? We've got one plaintiff.

23 MR. NORMANDIN: I understand that, your Honor.

24 THE COURT: He's a real party of interest, from

25 what I have heard already.

332

1 MR. NORMANDIN: And I just want to know if

2 this --

3 THE COURT: You better be brief and get to the

4 point. It doesn't sound like this is relevant.

5 MR. NORMANDIN: Thank you, your Honor.

6 Q Have you funded this litigation,

7 Mr. Grissom?

8 A I have not.

9 MR. CHAPMAN: Objection. Relevance.

10 THE COURT: Overruled.

11 BY MR. NORMANDIN:

12 Q Have you assisted in the preparation of

13 this claim against Dealer Services Corporation in

14 this case in front of us today, Flores versus Dealer

15 Services?

16 A I'm not sure what that question is asking

17 me.

18 Q Remember you're under oath.

19 MR. CHAPMAN: Objection, your Honor.

20 Argumentative.

21 THE COURT: Sustained.

22 BY MR. NORMANDIN:

23 Q Have you provided any type of logistic

24 support, any type of expertise, any type of funding

25 for the prosecution of this case against Dealer

333

1 Services?

2 MR. CHAPMAN: Objection. Asked and answered.

3 Relevance.

4 THE COURT: Sustained.

5 MR. NORMANDIN: I don't believe I have anything

6 else, your Honor. Thank you.

7 THE COURT: Can this witness be excused?

8 MR. NORMANDIN: Yes, your Honor.

9 MR. CHAPMAN: Yes, your Honor.

10 THE COURT: You're excused.

11 Any other witnesses?

12 MR. NORMANDIN: No, your Honor. The defense

13 rests.

14 THE COURT: How long do you plan to argue?

15 MR. CHAPMAN: More than five minutes.

16 THE COURT: How about you?

17 MR. NORMANDIN: May I make a proposal, your

18 Honor?

19 THE COURT: Sure.

20 MR. NORMANDIN: That we be given sufficient

21 time because of the legal issues in this case to

22 make a written closing argument and submit that to

23 the Court.

24 THE COURT: I think that's a good idea.

25 What do you think?

334

1 MR. CHAPMAN: That's fine.

2 THE COURT: Okay. We have an issue with

3 respect to the bifurcation of punitive damages. So

4 I would suggest that in your briefs, you cover

5 whatever you think goes to that issue. And I will

6 review your briefs and all of the evidence and

7 decide whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to a

8 verdict or whether the defense is entitled to a

9 verdict. If, in fact, I find that the plaintiffs is

10 entitled to a verdict, I will also indicate whether

11 or not grounds for punitive damages have been

12 established. And we will have a second phase. And

13 I will set that for a hearing in the future if that

14 event does occur.

15 MR. NORMANDIN: Thank you, your Honor.

16 THE COURT: Any questions?

17 MR. CHAPMAN: Just the deadline for the briefs.

18 THE COURT: Well, when can you get them in?

19 MR. CHAPMAN: I am out of town all next week.

20 THE COURT: How about ten days?

21 MR. CHAPMAN: That would put me I believe right

22 at -- that would mean I only have a couple days this

23 week, and I'm gone. I leave Monday morning. Come

24 back Friday night of next week. So I'm gone all

25 next week. Could we have two weeks from today?

335

1 THE COURT: Any problem with that?

2 MR. NORMANDIN: No, your Honor.

3 THE COURT: Yeah, let's do that. Briefs are

4 due by Tuesday, August 18th.

5 MR. CHAPMAN: Thank you, your Honor.

6 MR. NORMANDIN: Thank you, your Honor.

7 THE COURT: All right.

8 (Court was adjourned at 4:29 p.m.)

Show more
Anonymous
#58566

DEALER SERVICES CORPORATION ELIMINATES FRIVOLOUS CLAIM OF 189 MILLION DOLLARS FILED BY FAILED USED CAR DEALER MICHAEL GRISSOM DOING BUSINESS AS AMERICAN FAMILY AUTO

On March 3, 2009, Dealer Services Corporation (“DSC”) successfully eliminated frivolous claims of 189 million dollars and a request for punitive damages filed by failed used car dealer Michael Grissom, who previously did business as American Family Auto. The California Riverside County Superior Court granted DSC’s motion to strike Grissom’s spurious allegations for punitive and exemplary damages, as well as his claim for 189 million dollars, as improper and without any factual basis.

Plaintiff Michael Grissom borrowed approximately $200,000 from DSC in order to finance his inventory of used cars, but when his partnership with Alfred King failed, Grissom cynically turned against his partner, lenders, suppliers, and their employees, and filed suit in Riverside County Superior Court blaming everyone but himself.

The Court threw out four previous complaints filed by Grissom, as wholly insufficient, including his spurious claims of breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of loyalty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and conspiracy. In his final opportunity, the Court has allowed only claims for breach of contract and negligence, and disallowed his $189 million claim and his request for an award of punitive damages. More particularly, the Court...

Indicative of his baseless claims, Grissom is on his third set of attorneys and his fifth complaint and now must defend against DSC’s cross-complaint seeking recovery of $370,195.83 in treble damages, plus attorney fees and costs.

DSC vigorously responds to claims by fly-by-night dealerships who borrow money, fail at their business, and attempt to blame DSC and others for their own shortcomings. For further information contact Prenovost, Normandin Bergh & Dawe, a Professional Law Corporation, (714) 547-2444.

Show more
Anonymous
#58565

DEALER SERVICES CORPORATION ELIMINATES FRIVOLOUS CLAIM OF 189 MILLION DOLLARS FILED BY FAILED USED CAR DEALER MICHAEL GRISSOM DOING BUSINESS AS AMERICAN FAMILY AUTO

On March 3, 2009, Dealer Services Corporation (“DSC”) successfully eliminated frivolous claims of 189 million dollars and a request for punitive damages filed by failed used car dealer Michael Grissom, who previously did business as American Family Auto. The California Riverside County Superior Court granted DSC’s motion to strike Grissom’s spurious allegations for punitive and exemplary damages, as well as his claim for 189 million dollars, as improper and without any factual basis.

Plaintiff Michael Grissom borrowed approximately $200,000 from DSC in order to finance his inventory of used cars, but when his partnership with Alfred King failed, Grissom cynically turned against his partner, lenders, suppliers, and their employees, and filed suit in Riverside County Superior Court blaming everyone but himself.

The Court threw out four previous complaints filed by Grissom, as wholly insufficient, including his spurious claims of breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of loyalty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and conspiracy. In his final opportunity, the Court has allowed only claims for breach of contract and negligence, and disallowed his $189 million claim and his request for an award of punitive damages. More particularly, the Court...

Indicative of his baseless claims, Grissom is on his third set of attorneys and his fifth complaint and now must defend against DSC’s cross-complaint seeking recovery of $370,195.83 in treble damages, plus attorney fees and costs.

DSC vigorously responds to claims by fly-by-night dealerships who borrow money, fail at their business, and attempt to blame DSC and others for their own shortcomings. For further information contact Prenovost, Normandin Bergh & Dawe, a Professional Law Corporation, (714) 547-2444.

Show more

You May Also Like