On Aug. 4, 2014, plaintiff Trevor Beaulieu, a part-time art appraiser in his 50s, who was a car collector by hobby, was driving his 2006 Lamborghini when it was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Beaulieu subsequently had his Lamborghini towed to Bobileff Motorcar, where he previously had his other Lamborghini and his Ferrari routinely serviced and repaired to his satisfaction. Bobileff Motorcar then prepared a written estimate for repairs of the damaged Lamborghini. On Sept. 18, 2014, and Sept. 19, 2014, two checks were issued for repairs to the Lamborghini totaling $44,574.71, and Bobileff Motorcar deposited the checks. However, Beaulieu claimed that despite being paid to make the repairs, Bobileff Motorcar failed to make the contracted repairs to the Lamborghini. He allegedly made many attempts to determine the status of the repairs between September 2014 and September 2015, but his inquiries were met with hostility and anger. Beaulieu claimed that at one point in September 2015, he was told his Lamborghini could not be located. On Sept. 11, 2015, Beaulieu made a written demand for the return of the Lamborghini by certified letter. Beaulieu sued Bobileff Motorcar and the owner of the repair shop, Gary Bobileff. Beaulieu claimed the defendants’ actions constituted a breach of contract, conversion, and fraud. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that, many times during the time the Lamborghini was in the possession of Bobileff Motorcar, the defendants misrepresented to Beaulieu that the parts had been ordered and that the repairs would be made in a couple of weeks. Counsel also contended that when Beaulieu became concerned and demanded more information about the status of the repairs, the defendants threatened Beaulieu by stating that each time Beaulieu asked about the car, no work would be performed for 30 days, and by stating that Lamborghinis are delicate machines and that “anything” can happen to them. The plaintiff’s expert inautomobile sales and repairs, an exotic car dealer and repairman, testified about the length of time repairs would take. He also testified about whether or not the repairs had been made when the Lamborghini was picked up after the repairs were allegedly made. In addition, the expert testified as to what typically happens when a customer demands that their car be released. Defense counsel contended that Lamborghini parts are notoriously difficult to obtain and often involve lengthy delays, sometimes measured in years. Counsel explained that the parts must be ordered directly from the Lamborghini factory in Italy, through an authorized dealer in the United States, and that, in this case, the parts were ordered through Fields Motor Cars in Orlando, Florida. Defense counsel also contended that Beaulieu had experienced significant delays in having repairs done to his other, very similar Lamborghini, in approximately 2010. Thus, counsel contended that Bobileff performed the repairs as the parts became available, although, admittedly, the repairs were not fully completed, as some parts were unavailable and on back order in Italy, despite Bobileff having ordered the parts. Specifically, on Oct. 5, 2015, more than a year after the original estimate, Fields Motor Car notified Bobileff by email that a necessary bumper was still on back order. (The authenticity of the email was not questioned.) In addition, defense counsel contended that, in a related lawsuit that Beaulieu filed against the party that caused the damage to his Lamborghini, Beaulieu testified in his deposition, eight months after the repair estimate was done, that his car had still not been repaired “due to parts coming from Italy.” Thus, defense counsel argued that the deposition testimony completely undermined Beaulieu’s assertions in this lawsuit that he was never provided any explanation from Bobileff regarding the reasons for the delays in completing the repairs. Defense counsel offered testimony from an employee at Bobileff Motor Car who did work on Beaulieu’s vehicle. The employee testified that it was simply false that no work had been done and that, in fact, approximately 60 percent of the work had been done, but that it could not be completed without some parts that did not become available until after Beaulieu took his Lamborghini to another repair facility, where an estimate was prepared, at higher hourly rates than charged by Bobileff, which suggested that approximately $27,000 worth of work still remained to be done. Defense counsel argued that if estimated at the same, lower rates that Bobileff used, the new, independent estimate established that at least half the work had been done. In addition, defense counsel argued that Bobileff was never rude or hostile towards Beaulieu, that Beaulieu had been a good customer in the past, with no complaints, and that Bobileff had no reason to treat Beaulieu any differently in connection with the repair job. The defense’s car design expert, a native of Italy who worked for several years at the Lamborghini factory before coming to the United States and opening a Lamborghini dealership in the Los Angeles area, testified that Lamborghini parts all come from the factory in Italy, are not mass-produced, and that it is not uncommon to wait two years or longer for parts to be shipped from Italy., Beaulieu claimed that despite the written demand and the filing of the lawsuit, Bobileff Motorcar and Bobileff refused to release the Lamborghini until Dec. 24, 2016. He claimed that the paid for repairs had not been made even though the Lamborghini was in the defendants’ possession and control for the period of Aug. 10, 2014 through Jan. 4, 2016. Beaulieu claimed that as a result, he suffered from emotional distress as a result of how he was treated by the defendants and the loss of use of his Lamborghini. Thus, Beaulieu sought recovery of emotional distress and contract damages. Defense counsel argued that at least half, if not more, of the repairs had been made. Counsel also noted that Beaulieu claimed that the subject Lamborghini was the vehicle he drove most often, despite owning five cars, including another, almost identical Lamborghini and a Ferrari. In response, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the defendants lacked documentary support for the alleged repairs, including missing invoices for parts and time records for the alleged repairs. Plaintiff’s counsel also argued that the defendants intimidated witnesses.