zddoodah
Well-Known Member
Well...no one's going to learn that from reading this thread (at least not so far).
The message apparently isn't getting through to you, but I'll quote the numerous answers you've already received:
_________________________________________________
Here's what I can tell from looking at the docket for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:
In January 2020, the OP and her husband filed a product liability lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court against a car manufacturer and a dealer. The complaint alleges a January 2018 purchase of a 2014 car for about $12,500 and that, shortly after the purchase, the vehicle had transmission problems. Following service provided by the dealer, in April 2018, the OP "was operating the [vehicle] in a parking lot . . . and had parked the vehicle when suddenly, without warning, the vehicle accelerated and struck a tree, causing plaintiff to sustain severe and serious injuries. . . ." An auto repair center subsequently examined the vehicle and determined it "to be unsafe to drive due [to] issues with the transmission." In December 2018, the OP received a recall notice from the manufacturer. The installment sale contract is attached as an exhibit. I did not read it carefully, but I saw nothing regarding any warranty (which, presumably, would have been a separate document. The window sticker is also attached as an exhibit and says nothing about a warranty (or "as is").
On 4/30/20, the defendants removed the case to federal court. I did not look at all of the exhibits, but the notice of removal alleges that, in response to the manufacturer's preliminary objects to the complaint, the OP filed an amended complaint "in which she asserts claims of negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranties." The manufacturer then filed another set of preliminary objections based on alleged failure "to comply with certain procedural requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil procedure." The manufacturer also claims that the warranty claims are time-barred. The removal was based on the OP's assertion of federal warranty claims in her opposition to the second round of preliminary objections.
In May 2020, the OP dismissed the manufacturer without prejudice, and the case was remanded back to state court. It seems pretty obvious that the OP's attorneys thought the case was better off in state court without the manufacturer as a party than it was in federal court with the manufacturer (although I'm not sure why they couldn't have simply disclaimed the federal law based claim since that was the basis of the federal court having jurisdiction.
It does not appear that PA state court records are available via the internet, so I have no idea what has transpired over the past four months. However, it seems pretty obvious that the relationship between the OP and her attorneys is irreparably strained.
