Sign in to find out

Class Action Lawsuits Against Carmax Inc.

Have you been affected?  Tell us.
October 7, 2011

Carmax Inc Employment Class Action Lawsuit for Failure to Provide Rest Breaks

A class action lawsuit was brought against CarMax Auto Superstores California and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast.

The class consisted of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who worked for Carmax in California.

The case against Carmax claims:

(1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof;

(2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks and overtime;

(3) failure to pay overtime;

(4) failure to comply with itemized.

The court dismissed all of the class claims with respect to the sales manager class. Also, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions.

The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with regard to CarMax's failure to pay overtime to the sales consultant putative class.

The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling regarding the sales consultant overtime claim.

However the California Court of Appeals affirmed the court's ruling in favor of CarMax. The plaintiffs filed a Petition of Review with the California Supreme Court, which was denied. As a result, the plaintiffs' overtime claims are no longer part of the case.

October 12, 2010

Carmax Inc is Sued for Consumer Fraud Under Class Action

Carmax has been sued for the violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and Common Law Conversion.

The case involved the purchased a 2002 Mitsubishi Galant from CarMax and where the plantiff sold a 1999 Chevrolet Cavalier to CarMax.

The Chevrolet Cavalier had negative equity, which was transferred into the financing of the Mitsubishi Galant.

The original lender declined to fund the purchase of the Galant, and the transaction was consummated through an alternate lender several days later.

The plantiff attempted to return the Mitsubishi Galant to CarMax after expiration of the five-day return period.

The plantiff sought class action relief, however the case does not seek moneys greater than $50,000.00.

The case was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Municipal Department, First District.

January 8, 2009

Carmax Inc Class Action Law Suit

A class action lawsuit against CarMax Inc., certain CarMax officers and a CarMax director for the violation of federal securities laws through the dissemination or approval of false and misleading statements. The case seeks compensatory damages and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

The Court dismissed the case without prejudice in response to the voluntary motion to dismiss. This lawsuit was related to alleged violations of federal securities laws.

The case was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division).

October 9, 2008

Carmax Inc Class Action Law Suit

A class action lawsuit against CarMax Inc, certain CarMax officers and a CarMax director for the violation of federal securities laws through the dissemination or approval of false and misleading statements.The case seeks compensatory damages and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

The case was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division).

April 27, 2010

Carmax Inc Employment Class Action Law Suit

A class action lawsuit was brought against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc.

The allegations in the consolidated case involved:

(1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof;

(2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks and overtime;

(3) failure to pay overtime;

(4) failure to comply with itemized.

The case was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

October 9, 2008

Carmax Inc Class Action Law Suit Settlement

A class action lawsuit was brought against CarMax where Carmax operate five stores in the state of Maryland.

The case claims that CarMax has not properly disclosed its vehicles' prior rental history, if any. The case seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

Carmax has settled this matter, pending judicial approval.

The case was filed in Baltimore County Circuit Court, Maryland.

January 8, 2007

Carmax Inc Class Action Law Suit

A class action lawsuit was brought against 51 South Carolina automobile dealers, including CarMax Auto Superstores.

Carmax operated two of its 73 used car superstores in the state of South Carolina.

The case claims violations of South Carolina's Regulation of Manufacturers, Distributors and Dealers Act by:

(a) presenting their respective processing fees in a manner that gives consumers the impression that charging the processing fees is required by law and

(b) excluding their respective processing fees from the advertised prices of their vehicles.

The case is seeking compensatory damages equal to two times actual damages and punitive damages equal to three times actual damages. The complaint, however, does not specify a dollar amount of damages. Or alternatively the case will seek equitable relief in the form of a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from deceptively charging future consumers such processing fees and the disgorgement of all such processing fees collected. The case also seek to recover their attorneys' fees.

The case was filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Aiken County, South Carolina.

January 8, 2007

Carmax Inc Class Action Law Suit

A class action lawsuit was brought against 51 South Carolina automobile dealers, including CarMax Auto Superstores.

The case was filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Aiken County, South Carolina.

October 12, 2010

Carmax Inc Class Action Law Suit

A case was brought against CarMax for the company paying sales tax on a pro rata basis only as it received downpayment or principal payments.

This approach is sanctioned under the state of Texas sales tax regulations for motor vehicle seller financed transactions.

The case claims that even though it is sanctioned, to the extent the full sales tax is not remitted upfront, the sales tax amount should not be included in the amount financed for purposes of calculating interest or finance charges.

The motion is still outstanding for class certification which is scheduled to be heard.