LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) – A California man is suing Harley-Davidson over allegations it does include dealer setup costs in the pricing of its motorcycles despite its advertising.
Matthew D. Greene, an individual on behalf of himself, the proposed classes and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, filed a complaint in the Riverside County Superior Court against Harley-Davidson, alleging false advertising, violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and deceit, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, aiding and abetting and unfair competition.
The suit states the defendants advertised at the time he purchased his motorcycle in 2015 that dealer setup was excluded from its manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP).
The plaintiff alleges he went to Riverside Harley-Davidson on June 13, 2015, and purchased a new motorcycle for $23,799.63. The suit states the plaintiff also paid a $1,399 charge for freight and prep in addition to the purchase price. The plaintiff alleges the additional price was broken into $964 for dealer prep and $435 for freight.
He alleges he learned in 2017 through the defendants' advertising that the defendants reimburse dealers for performing manufacturer-specified inspections and tasks and that had he known at the time of his purchase, he would have not agreed to pay the dealership the charge.
"Plaintiff paid (Riverside Harley-Davidson)'s charge (or surcharge) of $1,399 for freight and 'prep' in reliance on Harley-Davidson's false statements, representations, and/or affirmations that 'dealer setup' was not including in Harley-Davidson's MSRP," the suit states.
The plaintiff is seeking a trial by jury; attorneys' fees; restitution of at least $1 million for each year since June 11, 2015, through Aug. 23, 2017; injunction against the defendants, attorneys' fees, costs and just relief. The plaintiff is represented by Ross H. Hyslop of Pestotnik LLP in San Diego.
The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 28.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case number 5:19-CV-01647