Heather Isringhausen Gvillo Feb. 22, 2016, 9:43am


An O’Fallon car dealer claims a woman’s consumer fraud lawsuit is insufficient and untimely.

Dian Ducey filed her lawsuit on Sept. 1 against Meyer Bros. Auto Company, doing business as Meyer Honda in O’Fallon.

According to the complaint, Ducey claims she purchased a new Honda CRV from the defendant in June 2007. She claims she brought her vehicle to the dealership when the air conditioner began having problems. However, she says the problem was not fixed.

She brought her vehicle in again in May 2012 with the same complaints.

She brought the vehicle in a third time, but says the problem still wasn’t fixed.

She claims the defendant misrepresented what repairs were necessary to correct the air conditioner, charged her for the “unnecessary” repairs and said the repairs corrected the problem.

Further, she alleges the defendant removed the clutch hub from the vehicle without Ducey’s permission in an alleged attempt to hide that the clutch was defective and improperly installed.

Meyer Bros. Auto Company filed a motion for bill of particulars on Oct. 30, seeking “basic facts about required elements of plaintiff’s claim.”

The defendant argues that Ducey failed to plead how Meyers Bros. deprived her of use of the part, which allegedly fell off.

“Was Plaintiff attempting to re-use the part, or did Plaintiff need the part for this lawsuit,” the motion questions.

It also alleges Ducey failed to plead how she was damaged by the alleged conversion.

“Is Plaintiff seeking to recoup the value of the part that allegedly fell off the air conditioning system? If not, what is Plaintiff’s alleged damage?” the motion asks.

“At most, Defendant is aware that Plaintiff is missing a part that fell off her air conditioning system. How that falls under a Consumer Fraud act is left to pure speculation,” it continues.

Ducey filed a motion to strike the defendant’s bill of particulars on Nov. 12 through attorney Pat Ducey of The Law Office of Pat Ducey in Troy. She argues that the motion should have been a notice and that it was filed after the Oct. 11 deadline.

Ducey also alleges her complaint was sufficient.

Associate Judge Randall Kelley withdrew the motion for a bill of particulars on Dec. 8.

Then on Dec. 31, Meyer Bros. filed a motion to strike or dismiss the complaint.

The defendant argues that Count I, which alleges conversion of an alleged defective air conditioner part, does not contain a specific prayer for relief.

Meyer Bros. claims that Count II, which makes allegations under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, is barred by the three-year statute of limitations.

“Although plaintiff was aware that her alleged air conditioning problem was not fixed in May of 2012, she waited nearly three years before returning her vehicle to defendant for further diagnosis and repair,” the motion states.

Kelley scheduled a motion hearing for April 11 at 8:30 a.m.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory and exemplary damages of more than $50,000, plus court costs and other relief the court deems just.

The defendant is represented by John Cunningham and Denise Baker-Seal of Brown & James in Belleville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 15-L-512

More News