Ford Motor Credit Company v. Cornfield

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 2nd District Appellate » 2009 » Ford Motor Credit Company v. Cornfield

State: Illinois

Court: 2nd District Appellate

Docket No: 2-09-0544 Rel

Case Date: 11/10/2009

Preview:No. 2--09--0544 Filed: 11-10-09 ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, d/b/a ) Appeal from the Circuit Court Jaguar Credit, and TINLEY PARK J. ) of Du Page County. IMPORTS, INC., d/b/a Jaguar of Tinley Park, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) ) v. ) No. 09--CH--1891 ) LINDA CORNFIELD, ) Honorable ) Bonnie M. Wheaton, Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, Presiding. _____________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE BOWMAN delivered the opinion of the court: Defendant, Linda Cornfield, submitted an arbitration demand for claims against plaintiffs, Ford Motor Credit Company, d/b/a Jaguar Credit (Ford Credit), and Tinley Park J. Imports, Inc., d/b/a Jaguar of Tinley Park (Jaguar of Tinley Park), arising from defendant's 2004 purchase of a used Jaguar. Plaintiffs in turn filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment in the trial court, seeking a declaration that defendant's previous settlement with the car's manufacturer barred her claims against plaintiffs under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel and the prohibition against claim splitting. Plaintiffs also argued that certain statutes of limitation applied. In conjunction with their complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary retraining order and preliminary injunction staying the arbitration proceedings pending a ruling on the declaratory judgment action. Defendant countered

No. 2--09--0544 by filing a motion to stay the trial court proceedings and compel arbitration. The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion and granted defendant's motion. On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in denying their request for a preliminary injunction and granting defendant's motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND A. Underlying Action Against Jaguar Cars Defendant purchased a used 2003 Jaguar from Jaguar of Tinley Park on June 30, 2004. Jaguar of Tinley Park assigned the retail installment sales contract (RIC) to Ford Credit. In June 2006, defendant and her husband (the Cornfields) filed an action solely against the car's manufacturer, Jaguar RAV, a/k/a Jaguar Cars (Jaguar Cars). They filed a second amended, four-count complaint against Jaguar Cars on June 18, 2007, alleging as follows. The vehicle came with a 4-year, 50,000mile warranty, followed by a Jaguar "Reacquired Vehicle Limited Warranty" until June 30, 2009, or 100,000 miles. The warranties provided that Jaguar Cars would repair or replace free of charge any nonconformities in the material or workmanship. Count I of the second amended complaint against Jaguar Cars alleged that it had breached its written warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty -- Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act (15 U.S.C.

Download Ford Motor Credit Company v. Cornfield.pdf