Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00413/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00413-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 49:32710 Federal Odometer Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alexander W Woytenko, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Jose Ricardo Lopez Ochoa, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-00413-TUC-DCB

ORDER 

Plaintiffs filed this action on August 20, 2019, alleging violations of the federal 

Motor Vehicle Information and Costs Savings Act, also known as the federal Odometer 

Act, 49 U.S.C. § 32701, et seq. (hereinafter “the Odometer Act”), for Breach of Express 

Warranty, and for consumer fraud. The claims arise from a series of title transfers occurring 

over approximately one year during which the odometer reading went form 271,801 actual 

miles to 128,900 actual miles. Plaintiffs paid $9,000 for a 2009 Dodge Ram truck based on 

this fraudulent representation and seek statutory damages of $10,000 against each 

Defendant and actual damages of not less than $8,000 and punitive damages against 

Defendant Ochoa of $24,000. Plaintiff has sued all Defendants in the string of titles 

beginning with the transfer of title from Jim Click, but not including Jim Click. Plaintiff 

has, however, only served Defendant, Desert Southwest Industries, doing as Jeff’s Auto 

Parts (Jeff’s Auto Parts). 

Case 4:19-cv-00413-DCB Document 20 Filed 03/24/20 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Clerk of the Court entered default against Desert Southwest Industries, dba Jeff 

Auto Parts, on September 25, 2019, for failure to appear or answer the Complaint. On 

October 1, 2010, Jeff’s Auto Parts filed an Answer, and on October 31, 2019, it filed a 

Motion to Set Aside the Default. On November 5, 2010, Jeff’s Auto Parts Amended the 

Motion to Set Aside the Default to include affidavits attesting to the merits of its defenses.

On December 10, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Extension of Time for 

service and to alternatively serve the Defendants. 

The Court grants the Motion to Set Aside the Default. The motion makes it clear 

that Defendant Jeff’s Auto Parts failed to answer because of inadvertence by its attorney. 

There is no evidence that Jeff’s Auto Parts was attempting to avoid service or acting in bad 

faith to delay the case. Jeff’s Auto Parts may have a merits defense and the Court always 

favors disposition of an action on its merit rather than default. There is no evidence that 

reopening the default judgment would prejudice the Plaintiffs, who have not filed an 

objection to the motion to set it aside. See United States v. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th

Cir. 2010) (identifying these factors for determining good cause to set aside a default). 

The Court grants the Motion to Extend Time for Service for 30 days and approves 

the proposed alternative service of process by certified mail.

Defendant Johnson is the owner and registered agent for Buster Wholesale Auto. 

Plaintiffs may serve Johnson and Buster Wholesale by mailing a copy of the Summons and 

Complaint certified mail return receipt requested to the address listed in the Arizona 

Corporation Commission. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(B). The Motion to Set Aside reflects that 

Defendant Johnson is an agent of Defendant Jeff Auto Parts, therefore, the Plaintiff shall 

also serve Johnson by certified mail to Johnson at his place of employment, Jeff Auto Parts, 

2412 S. Fourth Avenue, Tucson AZ 85713.

The Plaintiffs report that they have repeatedly attempted to personally serve the 

remaining Defendants Ochoas and Sotos at their last known addresses according to Arizona 

Motor Vehicle records. In the case of Defendant Ochoa, he has apparently moved. The 

Sotos appear to be home but will not answer their doors. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 4(e)(1), 

Case 4:19-cv-00413-DCB Document 20 Filed 03/24/20 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Plaintiffs may also serve Defendants following any state law for service. Under Ariz. 

R. Civ. P. 4.1 service may be accomplished by an alternative means, with leave of the 

Court, by Notice and Mailing. “[T]he serving party must make a reasonable effort to 

provide the person being served with actual notice of the action's commencement. In any 

event, the serving party must mail the summons, the pleading being served, and any court 

order authorizing an alternative means of service to the last-known business or residential 

address of the person being served.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(2). Plaintiffs’ proposed alternative 

means of service complies with Ariz. R. Civ.P. 4.1(2).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Set Aside Default (Doc. 12) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time and for 

Alternative Service (Doc. 13) is GRANTED for 30 days.

Dated this 23rd day of March, 2020.

Case 4:19-cv-00413-DCB Document 20 Filed 03/24/20 Page 3 of 3