VAZQUEZ vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Plaintiff alleges as follows:

1. As used in this Complaint, the word "Plaintiff" shall refer to Plaintiff FERNANDA VAZQUEZ.

2. Plaintiff is a resident of Riverside County, California.

3. As used in this Complaint, the word "Defendants" shall refer to all Defendants named in this Complaint.

4. Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY ("FMC") is a corporation organized and in existence under the laws of the State of Delaware and registered with the California Department of Corporations to conduct business in California. Defendant FMC's principal place of business is in the State of Michigan. At all times relevant herein, Defendant was engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components in Riverside County, California.

5. Defendant FIESTA FORD INC ("FIESTA") is an unknown business entity organized and in existence under the laws of the State of California. At all times relevant herein, Defendant FIESTA was engaged in the business of selling automobiles and automobile components, and servicing and repairing automobiles in Riverside County, California.

6. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued under the fictitious names DOES 1 to 10. They are sued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474. When Plaintiff becomes aware of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued as DOES 1 to 10, Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to state their true names and capacities.

7. To the extent there are any statutes of limitation applicable to Plaintiff's claims- including, without limitation, the express warranty, implied warranty, and negligent repair - the running of the limitation periods have been tolled by, inter alia, the following doctrines or ///

rules: equitable tolling, the discovery rule, the fraudulent concealment rules, equitable estoppel, the repair rule, and/or class action tolling (e.g., the American Pipe rule).

8. Plaintiffs discovered Defendant's wrongful conduct alleged herein shortly before the filing of the complaint, as the Vehicle continued to exhibit symptoms of defects following FCA's unsuccessful attempts to repair them. However, FCA failed to provide restitution pursuant to the Song - Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

9. On or about November 23, 2020 , Plaintiff entered into a warranty contract with Defendant FMC regarding a 2020 Ford Explorer vehicle identification number 1FMSK7DH3LGC (hereafter "Vehicle"), which was manufactured and or distributed by Defendant FMC.

10. The warranty contract contained various warranties, including but not limited to the bumper-bumper warranty, powertrain warranty, emission warranty, etc. A true and correct copy of the warranty contract is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The terms of the express warranty are described in Exhibit A and are incorporated herein.

11. Pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the "Act") Civil Code sections 1790 et seq. the Subject Vehicle constitutes "consumer goods" used primarily for family or household purposes, and Plaintiff has used the vehicle primarily for those purposes. Plaintiff is a "buyer" of consumer goods under the Act. Defendant FMC is a "manufacturer" and/or "distributor" under the Act.

12. Plaintiff justifiably revokes acceptance of the Subject Vehicle under Civil Code, section 1794 , et seq. by filing this Complaint and/or did so prior to filing the instant Complaint.

13. These causes of action arise out of the warranty obligations of FMC in connection with a motor vehicle for which FMC issued a written warranty.

14. Defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period, including but not limited to, transmission defects; engine defects; among other defects and non-conformities.