On June 8, 2013, plaintiff Thomas Soulliere, 28, a hairstylist, was riding his 2009 Suzuki GSXR 600 motorcycle on southbound Valley View, in Cypress, when a vehicle pulled out of a parking lot in front of him. Soulliere hit his brakes, but he claimed his front brake failed to respond and he collided with the vehicle. Soulliere sustained to his right knee and left foot. Soulliere sued the believed designers and manufacturers of the motorcycle, Suzuki Motor of America Inc. and Suzuki Motor Corp., and the dealer that sold the motorcycle, Berts Mega Mall. Suzuki Motor of America and Berts Mega Mall were dismissed from the case prior to trial. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the design of the front brake on the subject model of motorcycle was defective. Specifically, counsel contended that a brake piston in the front brake master cylinder was subject to corrosion, which could generate gas in the brake system. Counsel argued that due to the faulty design, the gas was unable to be purged from the system, resulting in a reduction of braking power to the front brake. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Suzuki Motor Corp. knew the brakes on the subject model were defective. Although a recall that included the subject model of motorcycle was instituted by Suzuki on Oct. 18, 2013, counsel argued that the recall was not timely, as Suzuki knew of the defective design for several years prior to the collision. Defense counsel denied the front brake failed to work and denied the recall was in any way related to Soulliere’s accident. Counsel contended that Soulliere did not have any complaints about any problems before or after the accident and that Soulliere did not claim any “recall condition” existed in his motorcycle, but only that the brake did not work. Defense counsel argued that the front brake locked up due to Soulliere’s brake input, which caused the motorcycle to capsize and strike the other vehicle. Counsel further argued that the brake worked, as evidenced by a skid mark at the scene., Soulliere sustained a right femoral shaft fracture with severe comminution and bone loss, a right, grade II, open fracture of the right patella; a left Lisfranc fracture dislocation; and a left tarsal navicular fracture. He underwent emergency surgery on the date of the collision and had permanent installation of an intramedullary rod placed in his right femur. He also underwent open reduction and internal fixation of the right knee, as well as irrigation and debridement for the open knee fracture, including skin, subcutaneous tissue muscle, fascia and bone. For his left foot, Soulliere underwent open reduction and internal fixation surgery. He then followed up with physical therapy and rehabilitation. However, Soulliere’s knee was reinjured during physical therapy and rehabilitation, necessitating a revision surgery. Soulliere claimed that due to the accelerated deterioration of his right knee in conjunction with his young age, his knee replacement will require a revision, likely within 10 to 15 years. He also claimed that he will eventually need an artificial knee. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Suzuki Motor Corp. was aware of a defective brake condition for nine years prior to the issuance of the recall. Counsel argued that Suzuki Motor Corp. was aware of hundreds of complaints by riders prior to the recall, as well as after the recall was initiated. Counsel contended that internal documents confirmed Suzuki’s investigation into the complaints of failures involving the front brake master cylinder of the GSXR series motorcycle and the result of that investigation. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Suzuki Motor Corp.’s response to the complaints showed that it acted with malice, oppression or fraud. Soulliere sought recovery of past and future medical costs and damages for his past and future pain and suffering. He also sought recovery of punitive damages.