In June of 2019, JobbersWorld reported that M.O. Dion & Sons Inc., and its division Amber Racing Services, filed a lawsuit against VP Racing Fuels and certain of its officers in Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 19STCV19662 and then removed to the Central District of California federal court, Case No. 2:19-CV-05154-MWF-KESx. The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraud, unfair business competition, and false advertising, among others.

Understanding there have been numerous court filings and motions since the lawsuit was initiated and a trial date has been set for July 18, 2023, JobbersWorld spoke with Matt Cullen, the former owner of Dion & Sons, to get an update on the case. 

Cullen told JobbersWorld that, “Since filing an action against VP Racing Fuels and three of its top executives, including owner Alan Cerwick, after extensive discovery battles and motion practice, Plaintiffs M.O. Dion & Sons, Inc. and Amber Racing Services have uncovered substantial evidence of the nature and extent of VP Racing Fuel’s alleged wrongdoing.” Further, Cullen adds, “Although VP Racing sought to keep from public view documents and information about its inner workings and alleged wrongdoings by having the Court “seal” virtually all public filings, the Court denied VP Racing’s request in the majority of instances, ordering the documents and information to be publicly filed.”

JobbersWorld was advised that these documents are the best source for public information on the status of the case and the alleged wrongdoings.

Cullen says, “The public documents include an August 19, 2022 ruling from the Court ordering VP Racing to produce attorney-client privileged communications under the “crime-fraud exception” to the attorney-client privilege, finding that Dion & Son’s “evidence established a prima facia case of fraud sufficient to vitiate the attorney-client privilege.” At issue were communications with VP Racing’s general counsel concerning VP Racing’s sale of a product referred to as “VP-110D fuel instead of VP-110 fuel without disclosing the material differences. According to that ruling and other court documents, including evidence submitted in connection with a motion for summary judgment, the “D” was VP Racing’s internal reference for “Dirty,” “VP-110D includes 10-15% recycled, returned, or waste fuel that varies in type, the properties of any given batch of VP-100D, including its octane rating, are not predictable,” and VP Racing “manufactured VP-110D with a “potpourri” of different components, such as waste fuel (also referred to as “return fuel” and “transmix”) and recycled and stale fuels – to facilitate the disposal of waste, recycled, and stale fuels, and increase VP profits – by blending them into VP-110D and selling it off to customers.”

Cullen notes that additional details pertaining to the above rulings and other pertinent public information on the case can be found in the case Docket Numbers 53, 130, 194, 224, 247, 260, 262, 263, 268, 269, and 276. These documents and other public information on the case can be accessed through Pacer at the following link:  M.O. Dion and Sons, Inc. v. VP Racing Fuels, Inc., 2:19-cv-05154 – CourtListener.com