IN ARBITRATION BEFORE THE

FAIRCLAIM ARBITRATION

JAMSHID IRAJI, an individual;             Claimant, v. TURO, a U.S. Corporation,            Respondent.   Case No.:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

            Claimant JAMSHID IRAJI, an individual (“Claimant”) hereby brings the following Statement of Claim against TURO, a U.S. corporation (“the Respondent”), for damages and for equitable relief. In support thereof, Claimant alleges as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

  1. This action is brought by Claimant, a THE RESPONDENTcustomer whose car got impounded by Mexican authorities. Claimant had rent out the car through the Respondent’s app. The car was impounded when the Respondent’s client took the car to Mexico and was found smuggling drugs. 
  2. Following the incident, the Respondent told Claimant it was a total loss and they just paid Claimant $5,000 for the equity that Claimant had in the car. The car was a lease and Claimant had plans to buy it at the end. These events happened at the start of July 2020 and Claimant’s lease was up in October. Accordingly, Claimant had to extend the lease since the Respondent initially agreed to get Claimant’s car back soon, which they never did.
  3. Although the Respondent settled the monthly payment and insurance that Claimant was paying on the car, they refuse to pay for the damages. Claimant rented the car for $85 a day. Accordingly, Claimant asked the Respondent to pay at least $10,000 for the 5 months that Claimant’s car was out rented (5 months x 85$ a day, minus their commission which is like 25%).  
  4. Claimant was using the car to make money during the COVID pandemic. However, with the car gone, Claimant has loss of income. Also, Claimant has difficulty getting around, he cannot travel, and all his plans got canceled. Besides, Respondent’s actions/inactions have subjected Claimant to unnecessary suffering including emotional distress.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

The Parties

Claimant

  • Claimant is an individual, domiciled in [ENTER ADDRESS], and is sui juris. Since on, or about [ENTER DATRE], Claimant has rented out his car to the Respondent.

Respondent

  • Respondent is a U.S.A corporation registered and domiciled in [ENTER ADDRESS]. The Respondent is in the business of offering car rental services.

Other Liable Persons/Entities

  • In addition to the entity set forth as Respondent herein, there are likely other parties/ another party who may well be liable to Claimant but respecting whom Claimant currently lacks specific facts to permit him to name such person or persons as a party defendant. By not naming such persons or entities at this time, Claimant is not waiving his right to amend this pleading to add such parties, should the facts warrant adding such parties.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

The First Email From TURO

  • After the Respondent’s guest failed to return Claimant’s car, Claimant followed the Respondent’s procedure in reporting a late return. (EXHIBIT 1). In response, the Respondent sent Claimant an Email assuring Claimant that they will resolve the issue and have Claimant’s vehicle returned. (EXHIBIT 2). The Respondent also promised they will be getting the car back and will be in touch till they get it back (EXHIBIT 3), and that the guest would be subjected to the applicable guest charge and fines. (EXHIBIT 4).
  • It is in the Respondent’s policy that the vehicles should be operated in the US. Claimant was not aware that it is possible to cross the border with a rental car. Claimant avers that THE RESPONDENT should have mentioned that when he signed up. The Respondent should tell its customers that there is a danger that the guests might takes the car across the border. Notably, when guests sign up on TURO, they are informed that the vehicle should be operated in the US).
  • After their promise that they will be in touch till they get Claimant’s car back, the Respondent ignored Claimant for months. Claimant had to email them couple of times hoping they might respond to him.

Respondent established communication with Claimant.

  1. On or about June 10, 2020, Respondent sent an email to the Claimant asking for certain documents. (EXHIBIT 5).  
  2. On or about June 19, 2020, Respondent also responded to Claimant’s email requesting attention for his case. (EXHIBIT 6).

Respondent’s Guest Requests Claimant to work with him to get his car back.

  1. The Respondent’s guest first asked Claimant out to meet him because she had something to tell Claimant. Later, when Claimant refused to meet up with her, the guest informed Claimant that the car had been impounded in Mexico. She asked Claimant to work with her to get the car back and not to tell the Respondent anything. (EXHIBIT 7). Consequently, Claimant reported the matter to the Respondent who told Claimant that by no means should he talk to the guest regarding this, and they will get the car back. (EXHIBIT 8).
  2. Claimant followed the Respondent’s instruction and followed the Respondent’s policy to get his car back, which Respondents have failed to do.

Further communication between Claimant and Respondent

  1. On or about June 22, the Respondent made further communication with Claimant. (EXHIBIT 9). In the said communications, the Respondent asked the Claimant for the power of attorney. (EXHIBIT 10).
  2. On or about June 23, 2020, further communication went forth between Claimant and the Respondent pertaining documents requested by the Respondent. (EXHIBIT 11). Claimant had to get time off work to drive around preparing these documents. The Respondent mentioned that time is of the essence, yet they did not put much care in ensuring Claimant got his car back. (EXHIBIT 12).
  3. Claimant prepared the requested documents and was every time having a hard time getting time off work. This caused him to go unemployed for months because he did not have a car! (EXHIBIT 13).

Respondent fails to respond to Claimant’s request for damages.

  1. On or about June 24, 2020, Claimant raised his concern about the damages he is entitled to. However, the Respondent refused to respond to Claimant’s concerns. (EXHIBIT 14).
  2. In their response on or about June 25, 2020, Respondent never discussed the damages even after they reported the car stolen months later! They only mentioned that they will discuss later when the issue is solved. Also, they mentioned that the car was seized on May 28, 2020, and again the guest lied about it all. (EXHIBIT 15).

Claimant delivers all required documents.

  • On or about June 25, 2020, Claimant delivered the Power of attorney and all the documents they needed. (EXHIBIT 16).
  • On or about June 30, 2020, the Respondent gave Claimant a wrong power of attorney form. Again, Claimant had to take time off work and go to the notary. (EXHIBIT 17).
  • On or about June 30, 2020, Claimant responds to the Respondent’s wrong power of attorney. (EXHIBIT 18).

Claimant requests Respondent for payment; Respondent requests Claimant for Vehicle’s registration details.

  • On or about July 7, 2020, Claimant asked Respondent to pay his payments and for the days Claimant did not have his car, with the rent for the days Claimant did not have his car. (EXHIBIT 19).
  • On or about the same day, Respondent contacted Claimant asking for registration again, even though Claimant had already sent them the contract and it shows Claimant was the registered owner. (EXHIBIT 20).
  • On or about July 8, 2020, Claimant got another of Respondent’s request for registration details. Claimant also told them they must pay him for the days that he got off from work to go after these documents. (EXHIBIT 21).
  • Between on or about July 9 and July 30, 2020, Respondent failed to respond to Claimant. (EXHIBIT 22).

Respondent responds to Claimant’s emails, assuring Claimant that the guest will pay the damages.

  • On or about July 30, 2020, the Respondent said they will make sure that the guest will pay for Claimant’s damages! Which she never did. (EXHIBIT 23).

Claimant lease expires, he extends it.

  • On or about August 4, 2020, Claimant’s vehicle lease drew towards its expiration date. Claimant’s plan was to buy the car after the lease was up. (EXHIBIT 24).
  • Claimant extended the said lease for one month. (EXHIBIT 25).

Respondent’s guest lies about the events leading up to the car’s impoundment.

  • On or about August 17, 2020, the guest said she had money in the car that the car got impounded. (EXHIBIT 26).

Claimant offers to go to Mexico to follow up on the vehicle.

  • On or about August 19, 2020, Claimant offered to go to Mexico if that helps. In response, Respondent stated that they knew the exact location of the vehicle and that once the prosecution process was over, Claimant would have his vehicle back. (EXHIBIT 27).

Update on Claimant’s vehicle.

  • On or about August 27, 2020, Respondent wrote Claimant that the vehicle would not be released yet. (EXHIBIT 28).

Claimant offers to go to Mexico again.

  • On or about August 27, 2020, Claimant offered to travel to Mexico to get the car back. Claimant was worried since he was only left with one month to the expiration of his lease, which he had renewed. (EXHIBIT 29).
  • On the same day, Respondent replied to Claimant’s mail and stated that the vehicle was still under the Mexican authorities. Respondent asked for Claimant’s last receipt of payment so that they may make more arrangements. (EXHIBIT 30).

Claimant makes further attempts to locate and obtain his car.

  • On or about September 8, 2020, Claimant explained how much trouble he has been subjected to by the Respondent’s failure to get his vehicle back. He even requested the Respondent to contact Chrysler Capital (Claimant’s vehicle leasing company) to explain to them about the vehicle’s loss. (EXHIBIT 31).
  • On or about September 9, 2020, Claimant paid $200 to a lawyer in Mexico to find his car (which he found), because Respondent won’t give him the said location. (EXHIBIT 32).

Respondent confirms that their guest has been lying all the time.

  • On or about September 9, 2020, Respondent confirmed that the guest had been lying the whole time and that she should be held responsible. (EXHIBIT 33).

Respondents ask for documents already sent to them, which Claimant had to struggle to obtain.

  • On or about September 10, 2020, Respondent surprisingly asked Claimant to resend the documents that Claimant had already sent to them to the address they provided. (EXHIBIT 34). Among the documents requested was Claimant’s proof of ownership of the vehicle.
  • On or about the same day, Claimant responded to the Respondent raising his concerns over Respondent’s questionable behavior. (EXHIBITS 35 & 36).  

Respondents show unprofessionalism and ineptitude.

  • On or about September 10, 2020, Respondent emailed Claimant asking him for a solution. They did this after about four months of doing nothing to help Claimant obtain his vehicle. (EXHIBIT 37).
  • Claimant continued raising his concerns to Respondent of how the Respondent’s actions have caused Claimant huge loss. (EXHIBIT 38).

Claimant extends lease for another month.

  • On or about September 18, 2020, Claimant extended the lease for another month (the lease was up on October 3, 2020). He extended it through Nov 3, 2020. (EXHIBIT 39).
  • Claimant insisted on obtaining his vehicle since he intended to buy it. Besides, the car had low mileage. (EXHIBIT 40).

Respondent states that once they get the vehicle’s title, it will be released.

  • On or about October 5, 2020, Respondent stated that once they got the vehicle’s title, it would be released. (EXHIBIT 41).
  • On or about October 6, 2020, Claimant sent the Respondent the requested Title. (EXHIBIT 42).

Claimant receives communication from Vehicle leasing company.

  • On or about October 12, 2020, the leasing company wanted an answer if Claimant wanted to buy the car or that he set time so they could come for inspection. (EXHIBIT 43).
  • On or about Oct 21, 2020, Respondent stated that they were still working on it.

Respondent pays lease payments.

  • On or about October 28, 2020, the Respondent finally paid Claimant his lease payments. However, they still owe Claimant $547.35 to this date beside the $10,000 Claimant is asking for the damages. (EXHIBIT 44).

Respondent assigns another individual Claimant’s case.

  • On or about December 19, 2020, Respondent assigned some other person to Claimant’s case. (EXHIBIT 45).

Claimant gets notified that the vehicle is totally lost; settlement offer follows.

  • On or about Jan 7, 2020, the Respondent notified Claimant that the car is a total loss. The offered a settlement of about $36,959.10.  (EXHIBIT 46).

Further communication on the damages.

  • On or about March 15, 2021, Respondent informed Claimant that the protection plan Claimant picked regarding their insurance does not cover the damages for loss of housing income. (EXHIBIT 47).
  • On or about March 15, 2021, Claimant respond that he is entitled to be paid for all the days the car was rented out. (EXHIBIT 48).
  • Claimant continued communicating with Respondent seeking an address of the damages issue. (EXHIBIT 49).
  • On or about April 6, 2021, Respondent again informed Claimant why they will not be paying for the damages. They also needed power of attorney to pay off Claimant’s car when the car was declared total loss. Claimant refused to give them power of attorney and they somehow paid off the car claiming that the car was a lease. (EXHIBIT 50).
  • On or about April 7, 2021, Claimant responded to Respondent emphasizing that the $10,000 that Claimant requested was for the injuries and/or damages he faced consequential to the loss of the vehicle. (EXHIBIT 51).
  • Claimant made further communication with the Respondent stating how and why he is entitled to the damages. (EXHIBIT 52).

Start of the Fairclaim process.

  • On or about April 14, 2021, Claimant began the arbitration process via fairclaim. (EXHIBIT 53).

Claimant gets paid his equity in the vehicle.

  • On or about April 22, 2021, Respondent paid Claimant $5,000 for the equity that Claimant had in the car. This money was basically Claimant’s money. (EXHIBIT 54).

COUNT I

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

            Claimant re-alleges, and adopts by reference herein, Paragraphs 1 -58 above, and further alleges:

  • Claimant brings this claim for declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 to have the Panel declare that Respondent’s actions were unconscionable, unfair, unjust, and against public policy.
  • First, Respondent failed to conduct sufficient background checks on the guests. Failure to conduct such checks resulted to Claimant’s loss/damage as a result of the guest’s actions.
  • Also, Respondent failed to adhere to its policy that no rented vehicles should leave the U.S.  Such failure resulted to Claimant’s woes are alleged herein.
  •  Respondent should bear all blame and liability following their failure to conduct due diligence on their part.
  • As a result of Respondent’s actions and/or inactions, Claimant has undergone injuries/damage. Notably, Claimant lost the car which he intended to buy; lost his job as a result of spending all his time and efforts to sort the car issue; made payments and insurance for a vehicle that was lost; and emotional harm for the loss of his vehicle.

            WHEREFORE Claimant demands entry of a judgment against Respondent declaring that the Respondent’s action/inaction regarding their background check(s) on guests, and failure to adhere to their operating policy, is unfair, unjust, and against public policy. Accordingly, Claimant prays this Panel declares that Claimant is entitled to the damages amounting to $10,000. Claimant further requests entry of any and all other relief the Panel deems just and proper.

COUNT 2

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FAIR DEALING AND GOOD FAITH

            Claimant re-alleges, and adopts by reference herein, Paragraphs 1 -64 above, and further alleges:

  • It is trite law that the duty imposed in the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing requires that neither party to the agreement will do anything that will destroy or injure the right of the other party to receive the benefits of the contract.
  • In Claimant’s arrangement with Respondent, Claimant expected Respondent to adhere to its policies, and conduct due diligence to ensure Claimant’s rights are protected under the business relationship. Claimant also expected that Respondent would conduct all affairs and make all decision with the interests of both parties in consideration.
  • However, Respondent failed to either adhere to its policies or conduct due diligence to protect the Claimant from damage or loss from scrupulous guests. Also, Respondent failed to consider the damages and/or loss suffered by Claimant following the loss of his vehicle. Respondent went ahead to deny Claimant damages, which Claimant is entitled to,
  • As a result of Respondent’s actions/inactions, Claimant has been subjected to much suffering. Claimant had to stop his employment for the sake of following up on the car issue. Claimant lost the vehicle which he intended to buy considering his profession as a realtor, which requires him to move his clients around. The loss of the vehicle also made Claimant cancel his plans. Notably, Claimant’s fiancé flew into the U.S. and they needed to travel, which required a car. Consequently, Claimant had to undergo more expenses in arranging for travels. Importantly, Claimant has undergone much stress in dealing with the Respondent in an attempt to get the vehicle back. He had to settle interests on his car payments, and other related expenses. Finally, all the confusion and uncertainty that lasted over 4 months left Claimant emotionally disturbed.

            WHEREFORE Claimant demands entry of a judgment against Respondent for the requested $10,000 damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, expenses, and any other relief the Panel deems just and proper.  

COUNT 3

NEGLIGENCE

            Claimant re-alleges, and adopts by reference herein, Paragraphs 1 -67 above, and further alleges:

  • Respondent owed a duty to Claimant to exercise reasonable care in ensuring Claimant’s rented vehicle was safe.
  • This duty included, inter alia, ensuring they conducted background checks on all their guests so they do not fall for scrupulous guests who would lead to the loss of Claimant’s car.
  • Respondent’s duty also included adhering to its policy that no rented vehicle leaves the U.S. This specific duty included ensuring that the Respondent should do everything possible to ensure vehicles that leave the U.S. are recovered on time, and that the guests are fined and charged accordingly.
  • Respondent breached the aforesaid duties by failing to conduct sufficient background checks on the guest, and failing to adhere to its policy that no rented vehicle leaves the U.S.
  • Consequential and incidental to the said breach, Clamant experienced a lot of suffering. Notably, Claimant had to stop his employment for the sake of following up on the car issue. Claimant lost the vehicle which he intended to buy considering his profession as a realtor, which requires him to move his clients around. The loss of the vehicle also made Claimant cancel his plans. Notably, Claimant’s fiancé flew into the U.S. and they needed to travel, which required a car. Consequently, Claimant had to undergo more expenses in arranging for travels. Importantly, Claimant has undergone much stress in dealing with the Respondent in an attempt to get the vehicle back. He had to settle interests on his car payments, and other related expenses. Finally, all the confusion and uncertainty that lasted over 4 months left Claimant emotionally disturbed.

            WHEREFORE Claimant demands entry of a judgment against Respondent for the requested $10,000 damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, expenses, and any other relief the Panel deems just and proper.  

COUNT 4

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

            Claimant re-alleges, and adopts by reference herein, Paragraphs 1 -72 above, and further alleges:

  • Respondentmade a representation and false promise that all rented vehicles are not permitted to leave the U.S.
  • Such representation induced Claimant to rent his vehicle to the Respondent.
  • Had Claimant known that rented vehicles may leave the U.S., he would not have rented out his vehicle to the Respondent.
  • Such representation was false because with/without Respondent’s authorization/knowledge, Claimant’s vehicle found its way in Mexico, contrary to Claimant’s expectations.
  • After realizing the breach of its own policies, Respondent failed to disclose that it did not adhere to its own standards and policies and continued to act victim even going to the extent of asking Claimant what options he has.
  • As a result of his reliance on the said representations, Claimant rented his vehicle whose loss subjected Claimant to much suffering.
  • As a direct and proximate result of Respondent’s wrongful actions, Claimant had to stop his employment for the sake of following up on the car issue. Claimant lost the vehicle which he intended to buy considering his profession as a realtor, which requires him to move his clients around. The loss of the vehicle also made Claimant cancel his plans. Notably, Claimant’s fiancé flew into the U.S. and they needed to travel, which required a car. Consequently, Claimant had to undergo more expenses in arranging for travels. Importantly, Claimant has undergone much stress in dealing with the Respondent in an attempt to get the vehicle back. He had to settle interests on his car payments, and other related expenses. Finally, all the confusion and uncertainty that lasted over 4 months left Claimant emotionally disturbed.

            WHEREFORE Claimant demands entry of a judgment against Respondent for the requested $10,000 damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, expenses, and any other relief the Panel deems just and proper.  

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

            WHEREFORE, Claimant respectfully prays for relief as follows:

  1. A declaration that Respondent’s actions and/or inactions in failing to adhere to its own policies; failing to conduct sufficient background checks on its guests; and failing to grant Claimant’s damages, are unconscionable, unfair, unjust, and contrary to public policy;
  2. An award of $10,000 and all additional damages recoverable under law including but not limited to compensatory damages, punitive damages, incidental damages, and consequential damages;
  3. Pre- and post-judgment interest;
  4. Attorneys’ fees, expenses, and the costs of this action; and
  5. All other and further relief as this Panel deems necessary, just, and proper.

DATED: ___________

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )

Verified by MonsterInsights