JOSE MIGUEL CEBEZ v. DANIEL JUNIOR, etc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that plaintiff must show “causal connection between the deception and the loss and that the loss was foreseeable as a result of the deception”
• noting that plaintiffs were injured by buying cars that were defective, even if they had not malfunctioned, because plaintiffs paid more for cars than they were actually worth
• explaining that if properly alleged, a claim that plaintiffs own vehicles with defective outside door handle in violation of federal safety regulations would support a cause of action under Ch. 93A because plaintiffs would have paid for more than they received
• discussing and factually distinguishing Hershenow because latter was case where no harm was caused
• purchasers of motor vehicles could potentially certify class to recover overpayment for vehicles that unfairly or deceptively did not meet regulatory safety standards
• to survive motion to dismiss, complaint must present factual “allegations plausibly suggesting” entitlement to relief

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).