COMPLAINT FOR STATUTORY RELIEF UNDER THE ILLINOIS NEW VEHICLE BUYER PROTECTION ACT (815 ILCS 380/1 et seq.) AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE [___] JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, [COUNTY] COUNTY, ILLINOIS

Case No.: _______

[PLAINTIFF NAME(S)],
  Plaintiff(s),

v.

[DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER NAME],
  Defendant.

[// GUIDANCE: Insert additional defendants (e.g., dealership, finance company) if strategic, but keep jurisdictional allegations consistent.]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Document Header and Caption
2. Definitions
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Parties
5. Factual Allegations
   5.1 Purchase and Warranty
   5.2 Nonconformities and Repair History
   5.3 Statutory Notice Compliance
   5.4 Informal Dispute Settlement / Arbitration
6. Count I – Illinois Lemon Law (815 ILCS 380/1 et seq.)
7. Prayer for Relief
8. Jury Demand
9. Reservation of Rights
10. Verification (735 ILCS 5/1-109)
11. Signature Block

1. DOCUMENT HEADER AND RECITALS

1.1 Effective Date. This Complaint is deemed filed on the date reflected in the Clerk’s file stamp.
1.2 Governing Law. All claims arise under and are governed by the Illinois New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 380/1 et seq. (the “Act”), and other applicable Illinois and federal law.
1.3 Forum Selection. Venue is proper exclusively in this Court pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-101 and the Act.

2. DEFINITIONS

For clarity and consistency, the following capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth below and shall apply throughout this Complaint:

“Act” – The Illinois New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act, 815 ILCS 380/1 et seq.
“Authorized Dealer” – Any dealership franchised by Defendant to sell and/or service the Vehicle.
“Informal Dispute Settlement Procedure” or “IDSP” – A procedure certified under 16 C.F.R. pt. 703 that Defendant requires consumers to utilize before seeking Lemon Law relief, if applicable.
“Manufacturer” – Defendant [DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER NAME].
“Nonconformity” – A defect or condition that substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of the Vehicle. 815 ILCS 380/2(d).
“Notice” – Written notification sent by Plaintiff to Manufacturer pursuant to 815 ILCS 380/3(b).
“Reasonable Number of Attempts” – (1) Four (4) or more attempts to repair the same Nonconformity, or (2) the Vehicle being out of service for thirty (30) or more cumulative business days within the first 12 months or 12,000 miles, whichever occurs first. 815 ILCS 380/3(a).
“Vehicle” – One new passenger motor vehicle purchased or leased by Plaintiff on [PURCHASE DATE], identified by VIN [VIN].

[// GUIDANCE: Add or delete definitions to match fact pattern.]

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3.1 Subject-Matter Jurisdiction. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Article VI of the Illinois Constitution and 735 ILCS 5/2-101 because the amount in controversy does not exceed the statutory cap of the Vehicle’s purchase price and incidental damages recoverable under the Act.
3.2 Personal Jurisdiction. Defendant transacts business in Illinois by marketing, selling, and servicing vehicles, and therefore is subject to general and specific jurisdiction.
3.3 Venue. Venue is proper in [COUNTY] County under 735 ILCS 5/2-101 because the cause of action arose here and/or Defendant does business here.

4. PARTIES

4.1 Plaintiff. [PLAINTIFF NAME], an individual residing at [PLAINTIFF ADDRESS], is the purchaser/lessee of the Vehicle.
4.2 Defendant. [DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER NAME] is a [STATE OF INCORPORATION] corporation with its principal place of business at [ADDRESS] and is engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and warranty of new motor vehicles in Illinois.

5. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5.1 Purchase and Warranty

a. On or about [PURCHASE DATE], Plaintiff purchased/leased the Vehicle from [DEALERSHIP NAME] for a total purchase price of $[AMOUNT].
b. The Vehicle was accompanied by Defendant’s express written warranty covering, inter alia, all parts and workmanship for [WARRANTY TERM / MILEAGE].

5.2 Nonconformities and Repair History

a. Beginning on or about [FIRST DEFECT DATE], the Vehicle exhibited the following Nonconformity(ies): [DESCRIBE DEFECTS, e.g., engine stalling, brake failure, electrical system malfunction].
b. Plaintiff presented the Vehicle to an Authorized Dealer on at least [NUMBER] separate occasions for repair of the same Nonconformity(ies).
c. Despite these attempts, the Nonconformities persist and substantially impair the Vehicle’s use, value, and safety.

5.3 Statutory Notice Compliance

a. On [NOTICE DATE], Plaintiff sent written Notice to Defendant by certified mail pursuant to 815 ILCS 380/3(b).
b. Defendant failed to provide an acceptable refund or replacement within the statutory 30-day period.

5.4 Informal Dispute Settlement / Arbitration

a. Defendant [does/does not] maintain an IDSP certified under 16 C.F.R. pt. 703.
b. [If applicable] Plaintiff submitted a claim to the IDSP on [DATE], and the procedure was completed on [DATE] with no satisfactory resolution.
c. Plaintiff has therefore satisfied all pre-suit requirements under 815 ILCS 380/7, or said requirements are waived due to Defendant’s failure to maintain a qualifying IDSP.

[// GUIDANCE: Tailor subsection 5.4 to reflect actual facts—participation is mandatory only if Manufacturer maintains a certified IDSP.]

6. COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS NEW VEHICLE BUYER PROTECTION ACT (815 ILCS 380/1 ET SEQ.)

6.1 Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates ¶¶ 1 – 5.4 as though fully set forth herein.
6.2 The Vehicle is a “new motor vehicle” within the meaning of 815 ILCS 380/2(b).
6.3 The Nonconformities constitute substantial impairments within the meaning of 815 ILCS 380/2(d).
6.4 Defendant failed to repair the Nonconformities within a Reasonable Number of Attempts as defined in § 380/3(a).
6.5 By reason of the foregoing, Defendant is statutorily obligated to:
  a. Replace the Vehicle with a new, comparable vehicle; or
  b. Refund the full purchase price, exclusive of a reasonable allowance for use, plus collateral charges and incidental damages. 815 ILCS 380/3(c).
6.6 Defendant’s refusal to comply with § 380/3(c) constitutes a per-se violation of the Act, entitling Plaintiff to all statutory remedies, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 815 ILCS 380/3(f).

7. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter Judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendant as follows:
1. Order Defendant to replace the Vehicle with a new, comparable vehicle or, at Plaintiff’s election, to refund the full purchase price in the amount of $[PURCHASE PRICE] together with all collateral charges, finance charges, and incidental damages, not to exceed the Vehicle’s value;
2. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs as provided in 815 ILCS 380/3(f);
3. Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;
4. Grant such further equitable or legal relief, including injunctive relief, as the Court deems just and proper.

8. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right under Article I, § 13 of the Illinois Constitution and 735 ILCS 5/2-1105.

9. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint to add additional claims, remedies, or parties as discovery reveals and justice requires, including but not limited to claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., and common-law breach of warranty.

10. VERIFICATION

Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/1-109, the undersigned certifies under penalty of perjury that the allegations set forth in this Complaint are true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge, information, and belief.

11. SIGNATURE BLOCK

Respectfully submitted,

[ATTORNEY NAME], ARDC No. [NUMBER]
[LAW FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE] | [EMAIL]
Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: _______

[// GUIDANCE: Include notarization only if local court rules require; Illinois generally relies on § 1-109 verification rather than notarized affidavits.]

PRACTICAL NOTES & GUIDANCE

1. Pleading Standards – Illinois is a fact-pleading jurisdiction; ensure paragraphs contain ultimate facts, not mere conclusions.
2. Statutory Damages Cap – The Act limits recovery to the Vehicle’s purchase price plus collateral/incidental damages; punitive damages are unavailable.
3. Arbitration/IDSP – If Defendant maintains a certified IDSP, Plaintiff must complete it before filing suit. Attach proof of completion or grounds for exemption to avoid dismissal.
4. Repair Orders as Exhibits – Attach redacted repair invoices as Exhibits A-D to corroborate the “Reasonable Number of Attempts.”
5. Service of Process – Confirm the correct registered agent for Manufacturer in Illinois (check Illinois Secretary of State corporate registry).
6. Venue Strategy – Consider filing in the county where the dealership and service visits occurred for strongest factual nexus.
7. Lump-Sum Settlement – Manufacturers often prefer buy-back settlements; include demand letter with detailed damage calculation to expedite resolution.

[// GUIDANCE: Review Local Rules of the applicable Circuit Court for any additional formatting, electronic filing, or mandatory ADR requirements.]