Dear reader,As I’m sure you’re aware, we recently posted a story about a couple who bought a new 2014 BMW i8 from an auto repair shop and then were horrified when the dealership said they could not drive it.
They sued the shop for breach of contract and for not paying for their repairs.
The dealership then claimed that the couple were negligent, and in a bizarre twist, the dealership had the woman’s driver’s license photo and license plate number on file.
The car was not in the shop’s possession when the couple bought it.
However, when the car was returned and the original owner filed a complaint, the car had been stolen.
The owner sued the auto repair company in Los Angeles Superior Court, claiming the shop breached her right to privacy.
The shop’s attorney, Michael McSweeney, claimed the dealership was only trying to make money and had no legal obligation to provide the woman with a new vehicle.
As you may have noticed, the woman has filed a federal lawsuit in Los Vegas against the dealership, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the Sheriff’s department and other Los Angeles officials.
The case has been going on for more than two years and is being handled by the Los Vegas District Attorney’s Office.
The couple’s attorney filed a motion asking for an emergency injunction that would prevent the auto-repair shop from making any further statements or providing any information about the woman.
According to the Los Angeleno Herald, McSweenys attorney said, “We’re not making any statement or offering any information in this case other than what we have said for two years.”
So far, the case has not gone to trial and has not been ruled on.
However the case appears to be a sign of things to come for car repair shop owners and consumers.
The Los Angeles Times reports that the lawsuit is being brought by the woman and her husband, who have been looking for a new, reliable car for a number of years.
The article says that they started looking for their own vehicle after their car was stolen in 2009.
In 2011, the couple discovered a BMW M6 was on the market for $15,000.
The woman had to pay $16,000 for the car.
The newspaper reports that her husband said, “I’ve been looking everywhere.
There’s this guy out here selling this car for $8,000.”
He said that the car would have been worth about $20,000 if he had purchased it in 2008.
McSweeney said, “”We’re doing this because this was a mistake.
We’ve never been in trouble with the law.
It’s not going to happen to us again.
“The lawsuit states that the dealership did not offer a new or replacement car for the woman, even though she had requested one.
It says that the owner of the car has also been able to make repairs on it, but has not received a new one.
The lawsuit says that after the couple filed a lawsuit, the owner did not pay the dealership for the repairs and was charged the $818 in fees.
In February, the judge ruled that the auto dealer had breached the womans privacy by disclosing the woman was a driver and that the dealer had not provided a replacement car.
In May, the court ruled that a court order barring the auto shop from disclosing that information violated the womanss right to remain silent.
The court also said that disclosure was illegal because the information would be in the public interest.
In August, Mcsweeney said that he would be appealing the ruling, and that his attorneys were trying to convince a judge to make a temporary restraining order that would allow him to keep the woman safe.
The woman has also filed a separate lawsuit against the California Department of Motor Vehicles for not providing a vehicle for her.
I will not let a court take away the right to own a car.
She said that she was very happy with the car and that she plans to keep it.”
It was a good investment,” she said.
She said that she was very happy with the car and that she plans to keep it.