Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
CDH vs Coda Automotive
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

CDH vs Coda Automotive

4,284
views

Published on

A lawsuit filed by auto supplier CDH Detroit against Coda Automotive

A lawsuit filed by auto supplier CDH Detroit against Coda Automotive


0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
4,284
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
25
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. {YB:00072242.DOCX }UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGANCDH DETROIT, INC., a MichiganCorporation,Plaintiff,v.CODA AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a DelawareCorporation,Defendant.Michael M. Jacob (P15391)Jeffrey D. Wilson (P56376)Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane, PC3001 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 624Troy, MI 48084Phone: (248) 649-3333Email: jacob@youngbasile.comwilson@youngbasile.comAttorneys for CDH Detroit, Inc.COMPLAINTPlaintiff, CDH Detroit, Inc., for its Complaint against Defendant, Coda Automotive, Inc.,hereby states as follows:THE PARTIESPLAINTIFF1. CDH Detroit, Inc. is a Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State ofMichigan with its principal place of business in the State of Michigan.DEFENDANT2. Coda Automotive, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Stateof Delaware with its principal place of business in the State of California.2:13-cv-11880-BAF-LJM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/13 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 1
  • 2. {YB:00072242.DOCX } 2JURISDICTION3. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court based upon diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28USC §1332(a)(1), as the case involves a controversy between citizens of different states.4. The matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00 exclusive of interestand costs.VENUE5. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 USC §1391 as asubstantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Oakland County, Michiganlocated in the Eastern District of Michigan.6. Venue is also proper in the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to Section 17 of theSettlement Agreement, under which the cause of action herein arises, which states that, “[t]heParties agree that all disputes and matters arising under, in connection with, or incident to thisAgreement shall be litigated, if at all, in and before a court located in Oakland County, Michigan,to the exclusion of the courts of any other state or country, or, if otherwise appropriate, in theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.” Exhibit A.GENERAL ALLEGATIONS7. On or about March 4, 2013, Plaintiff and Defendant executed a Settlement Agreementpurporting to resolve their dispute over the non-payment of outstanding invoices owed byDefendant to the Plaintiff, without resort to mediation, arbitration or the courts. Exhibit A.8. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff the sum total ofThree Hundred Thirty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Four Dollars ($338,234.00) in2:13-cv-11880-BAF-LJM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/13 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 2
  • 3. {YB:00072242.DOCX } 3monthly installments of Twenty Eight Thousand One Hundred Eighty Six Dollars ($28,186.00)beginning April 15, 2013 and ending March 15, 2014.1Exhibit A.9. Defendant failed to pay its first installment on or before April 15, 2013, and further failedto cure its default within Five (5) business days after Plaintiff gave notice of default via email toDefendant’s representative under the Settlement Agreement. Exhibit B.10. In accordance with Section 3 of the Settlement Agreement, the entire Three HundredThirty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Four Dollars ($338,234.00), less any paymentsmade pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, thus became immediately due and payable.2ExhibitA.BREACH OF CONTRACT11. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and restates paragraphs 8 through 11 of the GeneralAllegations as if the same were restated verbatim herein.12. Defendant defaulted and breached the Settlement Agreement by failing to pay its firstinstallment in conformity with the Settlement Agreement, and by failing to cure its breach withinFive (5) business days after being given notice of default by email.13. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of the Settlement Agreement,Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of Three Hundred Thirty Eight Thousand TwoHundred Thirty Four Dollars ($338,234.00), plus interest.WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enter Judgment in itsfavor and against Defendant in the amount of Three Hundred Thirty Eight Thousand Two1The final (March 15, 2014) installment payment was to be $28,188.00 so that the sum total would be fully paid onor before that date.2No payments under the Settlement Agreement have been received by Plaintiff.2:13-cv-11880-BAF-LJM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/13 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 3
  • 4. {YB:00072242.DOCX } 4Hundred Thirty Four Dollars ($338,234.00), plus interest, attorney fees, and other damages asallowed by law.Respectfully submitted,By: /s/ Michael M. JacobMichael M. Jacob (P15391)Jeffrey D. Wilson (P56376)Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane, PC3001 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 624Troy, MI 48084Telephone: (248) 649-3333Dated: April 26, 2013 Attorney for RLE International, Inc. &RTECH Services, LLC2:13-cv-11880-BAF-LJM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/13 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 4