CJ-2026-1147 - JESSICA LUCAS v. CLASSIC CHEVROLET, INC.

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: Jessica Lucas didn’t just buy a lemon. She bought a glow-in-the-dark, high-voltage, electric lemon that thinks it’s smarter than her — and keeps trying to kill her with cold air and surprise parking brakes. Imagine shelling out nearly $50,000 for what you’re told is a brand-new, state-of-the-art Chevrolet Blazer EV, only to discover your “new” car had already lived a secret life — registered, driven, possibly even haunted by dealership ghosts — and came with a heater that doesn’t work, a battery that refuses to charge fully, and a parking brake that loves to engage while you’re backing out of your driveway. That’s not a car. That’s a haunted smart home on wheels.

Jessica Lucas, an Oklahoma resident with, one assumes, a deep love of both technology and suffering, walked into Classic Chevrolet in Tulsa in December 2024 ready to make the future happen. She wanted a new electric SUV — clean, modern, efficient. And that’s exactly what Classic Chevrolet sold her: a shiny 2024 Chevrolet Blazer EV, marketed and documented as new. The price tag? $48,007 after trade-in and incentives. A hefty sum, sure, but not outrageous for a fully electric, mid-size crossover in 2024. The kicker? The car already had over 2,200 miles on the odometer. Now, for context, most true “new” cars roll off the lot with fewer than 100 miles — just enough to get from the factory to the dealership. Two thousand? That’s a cross-country road trip. Or, more likely, a car that’s been used, registered, possibly even driven by salesmen who wanted to impress their dates, or loaned out to customers while their own cars were in for oil changes. But none of that was disclosed. Instead, Lucas was handed a car labeled “new” like it was fresh off the assembly line, when in reality, it was more like a hand-me-down with emotional baggage.

Within weeks — maybe days — things started going sideways. First, the heater quit. In Oklahoma. In winter. Let that sink in. You spend fifty grand on a car that’s supposed to be your cozy, tech-filled sanctuary, and you’re sitting in traffic wrapped in a blanket like a pioneer because the vehicle’s climate control system has decided warmth is a myth. Then, the high-voltage system started throwing warnings like confetti. Not exactly confidence-inspiring when your car runs on enough juice to power a small village. The charging system? It wouldn’t charge to full. And forget about scheduling off-peak charging to save money — that feature just ghosted her. But the pièce de résistance? The electronic parking brake. Which, for reasons known only to the car’s rogue AI, would randomly activate while the vehicle was in reverse. Picture this: you’re backing out of a parking spot, and suddenly — BAM — the car locks up, jerking to a halt like it’s seen a ghost. Or worse, like it’s trying to cause an accident. That’s not a glitch. That’s a safety nightmare.

Lucas wasn’t lazy about this. She didn’t just sit there and freeze. She took the car in — three times — for repairs. And cumulatively, the vehicle spent over a month in the shop. Thirty days. That’s more than a full pay period of your life, missing your car, waiting for it to be fixed, only to get it back and have the same problems return like a bad sequel. At this point, it’s not just a defective car. It’s a recurring trauma.

So why is she suing? Oh, just for a few reasons. First, there’s the Oklahoma Motor Vehicle Lemon Law — yes, that’s a real thing, and no, it’s not about citrus-scented air fresheners. This law says if you buy a new car that turns out to be a mechanical nightmare, and the dealer can’t fix it after a reasonable number of tries, you get your money back. Or a replacement. Classic Chevrolet didn’t offer either. So Lucas is asking for a full refund — all $48,000-plus — minus a small deduction for the miles she did drive, which is standard. Then there are the warranty claims. GM issued an express warranty — a fancy way of saying “we promise this thing won’t fall apart.” It did. They had a chance to fix it. They failed. That’s breach of express warranty. And there’s also the implied warranty of merchantability, which is a legal way of saying “this car should be fit for driving and not actively trying to kill you.” Again, see: parking brake in reverse. Again, breach.

But it gets juicier. Lucas isn’t just mad about the defects — she’s mad about the lie. Classic Chevrolet sold her a used car as new. It had been registered. It had been driven. It had probably even developed emotional attachments. And yet, no disclosure. That’s where the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act comes in — basically the state’s “don’t be a scammer” law. If a business lies to you to get your money, you can sue for damages. And then, the big one: fraud. Not just a mistake. Not just poor communication. Fraud. Meaning, Lucas claims Classic Chevrolet knew the car wasn’t truly new, knew it had prior issues, and lied about it on purpose so she’d sign the papers and hand over her cash. And because the behavior was allegedly intentional and sneaky, she’s asking for punitive damages — not to compensate her, but to punish the dealership. To slap them in the wallet and say, “Don’t do that again.”

Now, about that money: she’s seeking damages in excess of $10,000 — which sounds low, given the car cost five times that. But here’s the legal twist: the big refund (the full purchase price) is required under the Lemon Law if she wins. The $10,000+ figure is likely a jurisdictional threshold to get into this court — a legal formality. The real payday could be much bigger, especially if punitive damages are awarded. And let’s be real: if a jury hears about a car that freezes its driver and slams on the brakes in reverse, while the dealership sold it as “new” with a straight face? There could be pain in those damages.

So what’s the most absurd part? Is it the malfunctioning heater in a state where winter exists? The rogue parking brake? The fact that a car with 2,200 miles was sold as “new” like it just popped out of a womb in Detroit? Honestly, it’s the audacity. The sheer, unbothered confidence of a dealership thinking no one would notice that a “new” car had already lived a full life — registered, driven, possibly even traumatized by previous owners’ bad decisions — and then slapping a “new” sticker on it like it’s a participation trophy. This isn’t just a lemon. It’s a masterclass in cutting corners until the whole thing falls apart — literally and ethically.

We’re rooting for Jessica Lucas. Not because she wants her money back — though she absolutely should. But because someone has to stand up to the machine. The car dealership industrial complex that treats “as-is” like a sacred text and “new” like a suggestion. If she wins, it won’t just be justice for one woman and her haunted EV. It’ll be a warning shot: Don’t sell people used cars as new and expect them to freeze in silence. We’re entertainers, not lawyers — but even we know that’s just bad karma. And bad business. And really, really cold.

Case Overview

Petition

Jurisdiction

DISTRICT COURT, OKLAHOMA

Filing Attorney

Damon E. Sacra

SACRA LAW, PLLC

Relief Sought

$10,000 Monetary

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

JESSICA LUCAS individual
Rep: Damon E. Sacra, OBA #21345

Defendants

CLASSIC CHEVROLET, INC. business
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Oklahoma Motor Vehicle Lemon Law	Plaintiff alleges vehicle defects and seeks refund of purchase price, attorney's fees, and costs.
2	Breach of Express Warranty	Plaintiff alleges breach of express warranty and seeks damages, attorney's fees, and costs.
3	Breach of Implied Warranty	Plaintiff alleges breach of implied warranty and seeks damages, attorney's fees, and costs.
4	Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act	Plaintiff alleges false and misleading representations by defendant Classic Chevrolet regarding vehicle condition.
5	Fraud	Plaintiff alleges fraud by defendant Classic Chevrolet regarding vehicle condition.

Petition Text

1,199 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA JESSICA LUCAS, Plaintiff, vs. CLASSIC CHEVROLET, INC., -and- GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendants. ) FILED Case No. DISTRICT COURT TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA March 12, 2026 10:56 AM DONNEWBERRY, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2026-1147 PETITION COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Jessica Lucas, by and through her attorney of record, Damon E. Sacra of Sacra Law, PLLC, and for her Petition against Defendant, Classic Chevrolet, Inc. and General Motors, LLC, states and avers as follows: Parties and Jurisdiction 1. Plaintiff is a resident of Creek County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Defendant Classic Chevrolet, Inc., ("Classic Chevrolet") is a domestic for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. 3. Defendant General Motors, LLC ("GM") is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business in Wayne County, State of Michigan. 4. The vehicle at issue in this litigation was manufactured by Defendant GM. 5. The vehicle at issue in this litigation was purchased from Defendant Classic in Tulsa 6. County, State of Oklahoma. 7. At all times relevant to this litigation, the subject vehicle was covered under express warranty/ies issued by GM. 8. At all times relevant to this litigation, the vehicle was covered under an implied warranty of merchantability. 9. The acts/omissions giving rise to this litigation occurred in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. 10. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter and venue in Tulsa County is proper. Brief Factual Summary 11. All previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 12. On December 27, 2024, Plaintiff purchased a 2024 Chevrolet Blazer EV, VIN No. 3GNKDBRJ0RS200183 (the “Vehicle”), from Classic Chevrolet. 13. The Vehicle was expressly represented and sold to Plaintiff as “new,” and was identified as new on the purchase documentation. 14. Plaintiff paid a total purchase price of $48,007.00 after application of trade-in allowances and incentives. 15. At the time of purchase, the Vehicle had approximately 2,222 miles on the odometer. 16. Prior to Plaintiff’s purchase, the Vehicle had been registered in the name of Classic Chevrolet. 17. Upon information and belief, the Vehicle was used by dealership personnel prior to sale and/or was used as a loaner vehicle for dealership customers. 18. Upon information and belief, the Vehicle suffered one or more defects, including but not limited to issues with the high voltage system, heater, parking brake, and charging system, prior to Plaintiff’s purchase from Classic Chevrolet, which were not disclosed to Plaintiff. 19. The Vehicle was covered by GM’s express written warranty at the time of sale. 20. The Vehicle was covered by an implied warranty of merchantability at the time of sale. 21. Since purchase, the Vehicle has experienced multiple substantial defects and nonconformities impairing its use, value, and safety, including but not limited to: a. High Voltage System Warning messages; b. Heater malfunction and failure to provide heat; c. Electronic parking brake randomly engaging while the Vehicle is in reverse; d. Failure of the EV battery to charge to full capacity; and e. Failure of the charging schedule function, preventing economical off-peak charging. 22. Plaintiff has personally presented the Vehicle for repair on at least three (3) separate occasions. 23. The Vehicle has been out of service for repair of warranty-covered defects for a cumulative total of thirty (30) days or more. 24. Despite a reasonable number of repair attempts, the heater malfunction, parking brake defect, and charging-related defects continue to exist. 25. Defendants have failed and refused to conform the Vehicle to the applicable express and/or implied warranties. First Cause of Action – Oklahoma Motor Vehicle Lemon Law (All Defendants) 26. All previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 27. The Vehicle qualifies as a new motor vehicle under Oklahoma law. 28. The Vehicle contains one or more nonconformities covered by the manufacturer’s express warranty which substantially impair its use, value, and/or safety. 29. Defendants were afforded a reasonable number of attempts to repair said nonconformities. 30. The Vehicle was out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total of thirty (30) days or more during the warranty period. 31. Defendants have failed to replace the Vehicle or refund the full contract price as required by law. 32. Plaintiff is entitled to refund of the full purchase price, including collateral charges, less any statutory mileage offset, together with attorney’s fees and costs. Second Cause of Action – Breach of Express Warranty (All Defendants) 33. All previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 34. GM issued a written express warranty covering the Vehicle. 35. The Vehicle contained defects in materials and workmanship covered under the warranty. 36. Defendants failed to repair the defects within a reasonable time or number of attempts. 37. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has sustained damages in excess of $10,000.00, together with consequential and incidental damages as allowed by law together with attorney’s fees and costs. Third Cause of Action – Breach of Implied Warranty (All Defendants) 38. All previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 39. The vehicle was covered by an implied warranty of merchantability. 40. The Vehicle contained defects in materials and workmanship covered under the implied warranty of merchantability. 41. Defendants failed to repair the defects within a reasonable time or number of attempts. 42. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has sustained damages in excess of $10,000.00, together with consequential and incidental damages as allowed by law together with attorney’s fees and costs. Fourth Cause of Action – Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (Defendant Classic Chevrolet) 43. All previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 44. Defendant Classic Chevrolet represented the Vehicle as new despite its prior registration and prior use. 45. Such representations were false, misleading, and deceptive. 46. Plaintiff relied upon these representations in purchasing the Vehicle. 47. As a direct result, Plaintiff suffered an ascertainable loss. 48. Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, attorney’s fees, and costs pursuant to 15 O.S. § 753, et seq., and damages and/or penalties as authorized under 15 O.S. § 761.1. Fifth Cause of Action – Fraud (Defendant Classic Chevrolet) 49. All previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 50. Defendant Classic Chevrolet made a false statement to the Plaintiff that they knew was false at the time they made it with the intention that Plaintiff would act on it to her detriment; to wit, Defendant represented the vehicle as “new” when in fact it was used. 51. Plaintiff relied on this false representation to her detriment in that she purchased a used car she was led to believe was new and purchased a vehicle with prior defects that were actively concealed by the Defendant. 52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s fraud, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in excess of $10,000.00 together with attorney’s fees and costs. 53. Defendant’s actions were intentional and malicious and/or demonstrated a reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff, entitling her to an award of punitive damages in excess of $10,000.00. Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment in her favor and against the above-named Defendants, for an award of damages in excess of $10,000.00, for an award of punitive damages and/or enhanced damages in excess of $10,000.00, and for all attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing this lawsuit. Plaintiff prays for all further relief this Honorable Court deems just and equitable. Respectfully Submitted, SACRA LAW, PLLC /s/ Damon E. Sacra Damon E. Sacra, OBA #21345 9246 S. Sheridan Rd., Suite P Tulsa, OK 74133 P: (918) 732-9221 F: (918) 856-3761 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff