June 19, 2024

Get Auto Tips

For Glorious Car

21 plaintiffs join in lawsuit against Pomp Boys

21 plaintiffs join in lawsuit against Pomp Boys

A lawsuit seeking treble damages for 21 plaintiffs who the document describes as victims of scams perpetrated by Pomp Boys Motors and their owners Anthony and Vivian Pompliano was filed in Wake County Superior Court this week.

“Every plaintiff has strong claims against the defendants under North Carolina’s Motor Vehicle Repair Act,” the lawsuit says and all the plaintiffs have stories much in common.

“In each case the defendants looked for weakness and saw a way to profit from it,” according to the documents filed by the Chapel Hill-based J.C. White Law Group and Halifax-based attorney Franklin Jones. “They would brazenly charge in excess of the value of the inadequate work they performed; they would perform work without offering estimates, and freely ignore those that they did give; over and over they would charge for repairs that had never been authorized.”

The lawsuit says the Pomplianos through their company “would falsely represent that repairs had been made; they would falsely claim that certain parts or repairs were necessary; they would falsely claim that cars were in dangerous condition and needed immediate repairs; they would alter invoices and other documents.”

Says the lawsuit: “Over and over Vivian Pompliano would make statements that she knew were untrue, deceptive and misleading. They took advantage of consumers who entrusted their vehicles to them by holding those vehicles hostage and requiring customers to pay excessive fees to reclaim their vehicles.”

The lawsuit is based on unfair trade practices under North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and also gives rise to claims for conversion and unjust enrichment.

The 21 plaintiffs come from Rich Square, Madison, Roanoke Rapids, Rocky Mount, Maryland, Massachusetts, Virginia, Littleton, Henrico, and Weldon.

The case of Charles Eason

Charles Eason owns a green 1968 Chevrolet C10 Stepside.

In November of 2021, Eason noticed that the motor was ticking. Another repair shop suggested he bring his car to Pomp Boys Motors to perform those repairs.

On or about November 29, 2021, Eason stopped by Pomp Boys and asked Mrs. Pompliano if Pomp Boys could repair his motor and put an AC kit into the truck. 

She responded that Pomp Boys specialized in those tasks, and she informed Eason that it would take about four-to-six weeks to complete the repairs.

“Upon information and belief, this was a fraudulent misrepresentation, since Pomp Boys had neither the capacity to do the repairs within the required time frame nor the skill to do these repairs competently,” the lawsuit says. “Upon information and belief, Ms. Pompliano used these fraudulent misrepresentations to persuade Mr. Eason to leave his vehicle in her care so that she could either extort a large amount of money from Mr. Eason or simply steal his truck.”

Eason left his vehicle with her and told her that the timeline was important because he used the truck to pick up lawnmowers, chainsaws, and other pieces of equipment for repairs.

Mrs. Pompliano assured Eason that she understood the importance of completing the repairs within four-to-six weeks.

Soon after dropping his vehicle off, Eason began to suspect that something was awry. 

He and his wife were near the Pomp Boys shop at least once a week, and they noticed that the truck was still outside and on the lot during the first two weeks after dropping it off. 

At that point, he began to worry that the vehicle would not be repaired within six weeks as he had been assured.

Mrs. Pompliano suggested that she was under the impression that the truck was already in the bay area for repairs, even though that was patently false.

In late December, Mrs. Pompliano told Eason that she did not know whether the truck’s motor would need a full or partial repair until they removed it for inspection. “For the first time, about three weeks after Mr. Eason had dropped the truck off, Ms. Pompliano told Mr. Eason that Pomp Boys required a $5,000 deposit to get the motor parts and AC kit.”

Eason provided a check for $5,000.

After she received the deposit, Mrs. Pompliano made numerous excuses about the delay in repairs, suggesting that COVID-19 supply-chain issues and other manufacturers were at fault for the delays. “Upon information and belief, these were all misrepresentations to mislead Mr. Eason into the belief that the delays for the repairs were due to circumstances outside of Pomp Boys’ control, when in fact the delays were caused by Pomp Boys’ known lack of skill and capacity.”

Finally, Eason offered to order the parts for the motor himself, and he quickly found suppliers that could provide the parts within a week.

Pomp Boys ignored Eason’s emails related to these requests and refused to allow him to see his motor broken down for repairs.

On June 1 of last year after Pomp Boys estimated a four-to-six weeks time frame and “after it became obvious that Pomp Boys’ lack of skill and capacity was the sole reason for the delay, Mr. Eason demanded that Pomp Boys return the $5,000.”

Pomp Boys has not returned that money.

In response, in July of 2022, Mrs. Pompliano sent an invoice called “Estimate #2452,” to Eason with a grand total of $24,294.40 for the work Pomp Boys purports to have completed. 

This was the first time Eason had seen the invoice. He had never received an estimate in any amount before work began, and never signed a written contract agreeing to the work performed as reported in the invoice. That invoice listed several repairs that were either not authorized by Eason or too vague or cryptic to adequately assess, including:

Machine work

Belts, fluids, etc.

Distributor — replaced elect, cap and rotor module

Rebuilt kit

Vintage air system and unspecified modifications to that air system

Custom fabrications

“It is not even clear what many of these expensive items are, nor is it possible to know what they have to do with the work Mr. Eason requested,” the lawsuit says. “Instead they appear to be fabricated charges that were included for the sole purpose of raising the grand total on Mr. Eason’s invoice.”

The document continues, “Upon information and belief, Pomp Boys cannot provide an explanation for what those descriptions are.”

For example, the description “a lot of modification” is used to justify a $3,750 charge for labor on the engine.

The vintage air system was priced at $6,200. Upon information and belief, a high­ end air kit can be purchased for about $1,500 to $2,000, making the price of $6,200 excessive.

The repairs to the engine were priced at $8,514.53. Upon information and belief, this is an excessive charge for the requested repairs.

In addition to those charges, Mrs. Pompliano also claimed that the “truck has no VIN plate on it” under the “Recommendations” tab of the “Estimate.” She also stated that the truck had no VIN number during a call with Eason and she asked him whether he wanted her to get one for him.

“Mr. Eason, knowing that his vehicle did have a VIN number, told her that the VIN number was listed on the title and registration card. Mr. Eason then asked if Ms. Pompliano was trying to steal his car. Ms. Pompliano did not respond.”

Though the invoice for the repairs was much higher than expected, Eason wanted to reclaim his vehicle and went to Pomp Boys to test drive the truck, insisting that he wanted to ensure the truck was properly repaired before paying such a large bill.

When he arrived, Mrs. Pompliano told him that he was only allowed to test drive the truck while she or a mechanic was in the vehicle.

When he agreed to those terms, Mrs. Pompliano then told him that he could only test drive the truck within the four walls of the Pomp Boys building. He refused to agree to those terms.

“Mr. Eason has paid $5,000 to Pomp Boys for work that was never completed and he has been billed for excessive work that he never ordered and that was never performed,” the lawsuit says. “Upon information and belief, without Eason’s consent, Pomp Boys moved Mr. Eason’s (vehicle) from North Carolina to Virginia.”

Pomp Boys is still in possession of his vehicle.

The case of Laurann Pierce

Pierce owns a green 1929 Ford Model A, a car she and her two siblings inherited from her father. Her siblings relinquished their interests to her.

Around March of 2021, Pierce took the Ford to Pomp Boys. 

She informed Pomp Boys that she was not interested in paying for a full restoration and requested a limited scope budget to get the vehicle to a drivable condition.

Pierce’s initial budget for repairing the vehicle was $5,000.

Mrs. Pompliano later convinced Pierce to increase that budget to get the car running properly. Upon information and belief, the Ford did not need additional work. “Rather, Ms. Pompliano wanted Ms. Pierce to authorize further work so that Pomp Boys could charge a higher amount.”

Pomp Boys never sent an estimate to Pierce and she never approved an estimate.”

Instead, she was sent an invoice for roughly the amount of her budget — $5,418.47 — and was told that the initial work had been completed. 

“Upon information and belief, this representation was false,” the document says, adding, “As a tactic to convince Ms. Pierce to authorize further work on the vehicle, Ms. Pompliano falsely told Ms. Pierce that yet more parts and repairs were needed before the car would be safe to drive.”

Pierce never signed a written contract.

Because she had not authorized any repairs, and because she could not get responses from any of the Pomp Boys employees, Pierce decided to pick up the vehicle.

When she attempted to test drive the vehicle, the car would not start, and it was leaking gas and oil. 

Concerned, Pierce left the car at the shop and asked Pomp Boys to fix those issues. 

Pomp Boys failed to provide any updates or diagnoses about the work its agents had performed to repair those leaks.

In February of 2022, dissatisfied with Pomp Boys’ service, Pierce went to retrieve her vehicle. “At that time, Ms. Pompliano tried to convince Ms. Pierce to approve additional work, including the purchase and installation of a carburetor, but Ms. Pierce declined.”

In total, Pierce paid Pomp Boys $8,970.65 for the alleged repairs so that she could reclaim the vehicle. “But that price was inflated and excessive for the work Pomp Boys allegedly performed and for the cost of parts that Pomp Boys allegedly ordered to place within the vehicle. Upon information and belief, the prices Pomp Boys charged for parts were improperly marked up and excessive given the market prices for Ford Model A parts.”

When Pierce reclaimed her car, it still leaked oil and gas and would not crank. “Pomp Boys charged clearly excessive rates in relation to the work involved.”

The lawsuit says Pomp Boys also misrepresented that its agents repaired the gas and oil leaks. “Even after all of the work Pomp Boys allegedly performed, Ms. Pompliano claimed that the Ford Model A was still not safe to drive and needed more work done. Upon information and belief, this was a blatant misrepresentation that was intended to induce Ms. Pierce to authorize further work on the vehicle.”

Pierce has reclaimed the Ford but Pomp Boys has received $8,970.65 for repairs it did not do.

The case of Timothy Robinson

Robinson owns a 1979 Pontiac TransAm.

In or around March of 2020, one of Pomp Boys’ agents picked up the TransAm to perform a restoration of the vehicle.

In or around June of 2020 Mrs. Pompliano sent Robinson a detailed restoration plan for the vehicle.

Robinson rejected Mrs. Pompliano’s proposal and told Mr. Pompliano that he would come to pick up his vehicle.

Mr. Pompliano then requested an opportunity to review the proposed plan to see if he could get the price down.

A few days later, Mr. Pompliano texted Robinson an offer to restore the car as described in the proposal for a total of $48,500. 

That total involved $20,000 for material and parts and an additional $28,500 for an estimated 300 hours of labor.

Over the course of the next few days, Mr. Pompliano followed up with Robinson by text and email to get Robinson to accept his offer. “Upon information and belief, Pomp Boys did not have the capacity or skill to complete the restoration project. Mr. Pompliano fraudulently represented that he could restore the vehicle to convince Mr. Robinson to accept his proposal and pay a large down payment.”

Robinson accepted that offer by providing Mr. Pompliano with a $15,000 check. 

Robinson agreed to pay a $20,000 payment at a later date, and the balance of $13,500 at completion of the project.

After he paid $15,000 to Pomp Boys, Robinson would call for updates on the repairs. He was informed that a team was working on his car. Otherwise, communications were scarce.

Later, in early 2021, Robinson would drive by the shop’s Roanoke Rapids location to see if there was anyone he could speak with. Often, no one was at the shop.

Finally, in July of 2021, over a year after he dropped off his vehicle, someone was at the shop when he drove by. 

Robinson went inside to view his car and check on the progress of the restoration project.

But Robinson could not find his TransAm at the Roanoke Rapids location.

Following that visit, Mr. Pompliano texted Robinson and claimed to have discussed relocating the TransAm to Pomp Boys’s South Hill, Virginia location. “The text was a lie — Mr. Pompliano never had that discussion with Mr. Robinson. Rather, Mr. Pompliano made that false representation in an attempt to cover his tracks for moving Mr. Robinson’s vehicle across state lines without authorization.”

Mr. Pompliano also claimed that the South Hill, Virginia location had a professional paint booth.

But, upon information and belief, Pomp Boys South Hill, Virginia location is not zoned for automobile work-including painting.

Pomp Boys has since requested a public hearing to get a special exception permit to allow such work, and that hearing was set earlier this week. 

Throughout the remainder of 2021, Pomp Boys and the Pomplianos continued to avoid Robinson’s phone calls.

Last year Robinson talked to an employee at the Roanoke Rapids location and the employee told him he would contact them.

The Pomplianos invited Robinson to their South Hill location to see his TransAm. The car was lined with tape, as if set up for painting.

Even though Pomp Boy’s South Hills location was not authorized to perform paint jobs, Mr. Pompliano told Robinson that the car would be ready for painting “soon.”

“This was a patently false representation, but relying on it Mr. Robinson tendered a $20,000 check to Pomp Boys at that time,” the lawsuit said.

When Robinson asked for a receipt, Mr. Pompliano claimed that his printer was broken.

Months later, after another long period without being able to contact either Mr.

Pompliano or Mrs. Pompliano, Robinson stopped by the Roanoke Rapids location after noticing Mrs. Pompliano outside talking to police. He asked for an update on the car.

A few days later, she sent Robinson an email claiming that Pomp Boys never agreed to a price of $48,500 for the restoration project, but had only made an estimate. 

“Upon information and belief, Ms. Pompliano was unaware that Mr. Robinson had copies of the text-message-contract he had formed with Mr. Pompliano, and she intended to scam Mr. Robinson out of more money by changing the price,” the lawsuit contends. “Upon information and belief, Ms. Pompliano knew that Pomp Boys did not have the capacity or skill to complete the restoration project.”

Robinson told Mrs. Pompliano that Pomp Boys could either finish the job or refund his $20,000 check, which he paid in reliance on the car being painted.

“But Ms. Pompliano has refused to take either of those options. Instead, Pomp Boys has continually tried to get Mr. Robinson to pick up his vehicle with no refund. Pomp Boys made untrue, deceptive, and misleading statements to Mr. Robinson by, among other things, claiming that Mr. Robinson had authorized an interstate transfer of his car and by claiming that they could paint his vehicle at their South Hill location despite that location not being zoned for automobile repairs or painting.”

The lawsuit says that Pomp Boys made fraudulent promises that were intended to persuade 

Robinson to authorize further work by claiming they could paint the TransAm and finish the restoration project when, upon information and belief, they lacked the capacity to do either.

Robinson has paid $35,000 to Pomp Boys for work that is inadequate and incomplete. Pomp Boys is still in possession of Robinson’s vehicle.

The case of Ricky Green

Green owned a 1969 Chevrolet C-10 truck.

After noticing that his air conditioning needed repairs, Green bought parts for the air conditioning and brought them along with his Chevy to Pomp Boys.

Green explained to Mrs. Pompliano that he planned to spend about $10,000 total on the vehicle over the next few years. This was small talk that Green believed to be polite conversation between two individuals who enjoy automobiles. “Upon information and belief, Ms. Pompliano used that statement as a gauge for how much money she could fraudulently convince Mr. Green to spend on needless repairs.”

Mrs. Pompliano did not give Green a written estimate but promised to call him back with a quote after she looked over the truck.

Pomp Boys never gave Green a written estimate.

When Green called Mrs. Pompliano to ask about the estimate, she informed him that it would cost $2,500 to install the air conditioning.

Mrs. Pompliano also informed him that Pomp Boys had already begun working on the car. “Ms. Pompliano then suggested that Mr. Green authorize the installation of power doors and locks to the car for an additional $4,000 to $5,000. Mr. Green agreed but then called back on that same day to cancel that work. Ms. Pompliano replied that it was too late and that Pomp Boys had already started the work and that it was not possible to stop work once it had begun.”

It is believed Pomp Boys had not started the work and even if it had, it could have stopped working given the minimum amount of time that would have been involved.

“Upon information and belief, Ms. Pompliano fraudulently represented that work had already begun on the vehicle and that the work could not stop just to fabricate further charges on Mr. Green’s invoice,” according to the document. “When Mr. Green came back to retrieve the car, Ms. Pompliano revealed that Pomp Boys was charging him over $16,000.”

Green asked for documentation explaining the $16,000 worth of repairs, but Mrs. Pompliano claimed to need another day or two to get the invoice together.

The lawsuit purports Mrs. Pompliano fabricated a final invoice with charges that were either excessive or for labor that was never performed and that Green did not authorize the repairs. “Even accepting Ms. Pompliano’s unbelievable assertion that parts were ordered, received and work done within an hour, and her false statement that work could not be canceled once begun, the only repairs that Mr. Green could possibly have authorized were repairs to the horn, keyless remote start, air conditions, power locks, and windows.”

The lawsuit says, “When Ms. Pompliano finally provided an invoice it included work for a treasure trove of unauthorized work: diagnosing an issue with the engine that Pomp Boys seems to have caused, fixing an alleged antifreeze leak, repairs to an interior light, working on wires under the dash, diagnosing interior noises, detailing the engine, aligning the driver’s door, working on a ‘Mechanism Relay,’ and work on an alleged ‘missing’ door panel screw.”

 That unauthorized work alone accounted for $3,121.50 of Green’s invoice. “ … Much of this work was entirely unnecessary. For example, the missing door panel screw required additional work because ‘there was nothing to screw into’ and Pomp Boys ‘needed to fabricate something to put behind the door panel.’”

The work for the missing door panel screw must have been done contrary to the manufacturer’s established procedures for the 1969 Chevrolet. “It also appears that the horn and one of the door locks were not properly repaired.”

Despite all the unnecessary charges, Green was intent on reclaiming his vehicle. In total, Green paid $16,112.16 to reclaim his 1969 Chevrolet.

He has since sold the vehicle.

The cases of Thomas and Louise Pair

Thomas Pair owns a 1966 Ford Galaxie 500.

Louise Pair, his mother, owns a 1995 Crown Victoria and a 1985 Ford Fl50.

Mr. Pair and his mother wanted to get those vehicles serviced, and Mr. Pair arranged for an in-person meeting with Mrs. Pompliano to discuss Pomp Boys services and the scope of work for the three vehicles.

The parties understood that Mr. Pair would be acting on behalf of his mother.

Mrs. Pompliano assured Mr. Pair that Pomp Boys could perform the services discussed at a reasonable price point. 

She also stated that Pomp Boys could do all the necessary work in-house rather than outsourcing it elsewhere. “Upon information and belief, these comments were fraudulent or deceptive statements to induce Mr. Pair into paying a large down payment and leaving the vehicles with Pomp Boys, because Pomp Boys lacked the capacity and skill to perform the repairs.”

Mr. Pair decided to authorize repairs and delivered the vehicles to Pomp Boys.

It is it believed that no work was performed on the 1985 Ford F150, and it remained parked in the same location at which it was delivered to Pomp Boys until Mr. Pair picked it up on June 6, 2022.

Mrs. Pompliano admitted that one of her employees lost the keys to the truck and no estimate was ever created.

Months later, Mrs. Pompliano provided invoices for the Ford Galaxie and Crown Victoria. The total invoice for the Ford Galaxie came to $10,617.72.

It is believed that no work or repairs were made on the Ford Galaxie, and it remained parked in the same location at which it was delivered to Pomp Boys until Mr. Pair picked it up on June 6, 2022.

The total invoice for the Crown Victoria came to $13,760.56.

The work performed on the Crown Victoria, if any, was minimal, inadequate and incomplete.

Surprised by the information included within the invoices for those two vehicles, Mr. Pair set up an in-person visit to discuss those invoices with Mrs. Pompliano, during which he raised several concerns with the estimated prices.

Mrs. Pompliano advised Mr. Pair that, at that time, no work had been performed on the vehicles and the numbers in the estimate were only preliminary estimates based on a visual inspection. She also insisted that the numbers would be reviewed, corrected, and changed once work started on the vehicle.

In response to Mr. Pair’s particular concerns with the prices listed on the estimate, Mrs. Pompliano reviewed the estimate and agreed that, for some of the entries, a human or system error must have occurred.

She assured Mr. Pair that the final estimates would be reviewed and changed to reflect the final cost.

No such revisions were ever made to the estimates.

“Upon information and belief, Ms. Pompliano intended to charge Mr. Pair the full price as indicated on those invoices but later backed down when she realized Mr. Pair understood what to expect from an auto-repair shop,” the document says.

On that same date, Mr. Pair, relying on Mrs. Pompliano’s promises, gave her a cashier’s check for $20,000. That cashier’s check was later cashed and cleared.

The $20,000 was the agreed-upon down payment for all three vehicles Mr. Pair had left with Pomp Boys for repairs.

The parties agreed that $10,000 would be applied to the costs for repairs on the Crown Victoria and Ford Galaxie and any unused amount would be used among the three vehicles as needed.

About a year after Mr. Pair dropped off the vehicles, he sent Mrs. Pompliano a

letter requesting to schedule a date on which he could see the vehicles to review the progress on repairs.

She never responded to the letter.

A month after sending the letter, Mr. Pair stopped by the Roanoke Rapids location.

Mrs. Pompliano provided the keys to the Crown Victoria so that Mr. Pair could inspect the vehicle. She admitted to losing the keys to the Ford F150.

While inspecting the Crown Victoria, Mr. Pair noticed several items had not been repaired that the Pomp Boys’ estimate stated were complete.

After that inspection, Mr. Pair returned to Mrs. Pompliano’s office and questioned, page by page, the items on the estimate. Mrs. Pompliano, again, agreed that some of the items needed to be reviewed and corrected. “But as the meeting continued, Ms. Pompliano then began to provide rambling excuses about the prices on the invoices and threatened to seize all three vehicles if Mr. Pair did not agree to the estimated price. At that point, Mr. Pair indicated that he needed to take a break and return a phone call.”

She followed Mr. Pair out to his car, demanding that he tell her who he was calling. “At that point, Mr. Pair was determined to reclaim all three vehicles from Pomp Boys. Given Ms. Pompliano’ s disposition at that time, he called the police department for assistance.”

When the officers arrived, Mrs. Pompliano demanded an additional $3,760.56, despite having already received $20,000 for the little, if any, work performed on the Crown Victoria.

Pomp Boys performed no work on either of the other two vehicles.

She refused to accept Mr. Pair’s check for $3,760.56 and instead accepted $3,760.56 in cash, which Mr. Pair had to spend additional time securing.

“Pomp Boys charged Mr. Pair for repairs that he never authorized, misrepresented that those repairs had been made, and misrepresented that certain parts were necessary to repair the car. When Mr. Pair asked for the old parts that were removed from any of the three vehicles during the alleged repairs, Ms. Pompliano refused to provide them.”

In total, Mr. Pair paid Pomp Boys $23,670.56, a price the lawsuit deems is clearly excessive for the work allegedly performed.

Mr. Pair and Louise Pair reclaimed all three vehicles and are still in possession of each one.

The case of Pelaiah Yisrael

Yisrael owns a 2005 Volvo XE90.

On or about November 28, 2020, Yisrael noticed that her Volvo needed some repairs. 

While shopping around for some quotes, Pomp Boys provided her with a verbal estimate of between $3,000 and $5,000.

After shopping around for some other quotes, she decided to work with Pomp Boys and brought the car to its Roanoke Rapids location.

Mrs. Pompliano assured Yisrael that Pomp Boys worked on Volvos and rebuilt Volvo engines. She suggested that Pomp Boys could repair the issue in three weeks.

None of those statements were true, the lawsuit says, and were intended to fraudulently induce Yisrael into leaving her car with Pomp Boys.

After those three weeks went by, Yisrael called Mrs. Pompliano to ask when she could pick her Volvo up, but on each call she claimed she was not at the office and that the car could not be released if she was not there.

Yisrael later went to Pomp Boys in Roanoke Rapids even though Mrs. Pompliano had said she would not be there to see what she could find. She was surprised to find that Mrs. Pompliano was in fact at the shop.

Yisrael called police for assistance with getting her car and they arrived shortly after.

Mrs. Pompliano became confrontational and said she would not release the Volvo. She told  Yisrael and the officer to leave the property because they were trespassing.

Yisrael paid Mrs. Pompliano $5,399.60 so she could reclaim her Volvo.

Despite the work Pomp Boys claimed to have done, the Volvo would not start.

Mrs. Pompliano was avoiding Yisrael’s calls and did not want her to come and pick up the Volvo because no work had been performed on the vehicle, the lawsuit says.

Yisrael requested to speak with the mechanic who worked on her car so that she could get an understanding of its condition and the work that was performed, but Pomp Boys refused to allow that request.

Returning to her Volvo, Yisrael was finally able to start the engine and drove the car back to her house, but barely made it home.

She then had the car towed to Weaver Brothers Volvo Cars in Raleigh. Weaver Brothers ran a diagnostics test for $500. After reviewing the results, the agent who ran the test told her that it would cost around $8,000 to $10,000 to fix the vehicle and advised her to get rid of the car.

“Pomp Boys performed insufficient work, if any, on Ms. Yisrael’s Volvo and misrepresented that work had been performed.”

She is currently in possession of her Volvo.

The case of Randy Grady

Grady owns a 1981 Corvette.

In or around November of 2020, Mr. Grady decided that he wanted to have some interior work completed on his Corvette.

After learning about Pomp Boys, Grady drove to their location at Roanoke Rapids to see if they could fix his interior to look new.

Mrs. Pompliano provided a quote for $5,200, by text message, to perform work on Grady’s Corvette — $5,000 to fix the interior and $200 to fix an electrical issue with the water temperature gauge. 

Grady accepted that offer with a text message in response to those terms.

Mrs. Pompliano told Grady that Pomp Boys would complete the work within six weeks.

Mrs. Pompliano and Grady later verbally agreed to two additional items — installation of a stereo, within his proposed budget of $1,000 to $1,200, and installation of a T-top.

Mr. Pompliano had Grady come and inspect the door panels and seats to his Corvette. 

The door panels had been recovered, but there were issues with the seats not being properly covered. 

Given the costs for the repairs, Grady asked that those issues be corrected.

On a later visit, Mrs. Pompliano asked Grady to come to the shop and look over the car. When Grady arrived, Mrs. Pompliano insisted that it would take an additional $3,300 to finish the interior repairs.

The addition of $3,300 increased the initial quote of $5,200 by over 60 percent.

Grady told Mrs. Pompliano that it sounded like they were unable to agree on a price and suggested that a judge would have to determine what he owed to Pomp Boys.

Realizing that he would need to work something out to reclaim his Corvette, 

Grady called Mrs. Pompliano to pin down a price for all the work to be completed.

On a phone call on November 2, 2021, Mr. Grady confirmed the following with Ms. Pompliano:

T-tops at $1,899 with no more than five hours of work

Stereo at $1,599

Interior work for $8,566.92.

Grady also asked Mrs. Pompliano for a copy of the original text­ message contract in which the parties agreed to a quote of $5,200. She refused to show Grady that message. Instead, she insisted that she would send a new contract.

The next day, Mrs. Pompliano sent Grady a text message with a quote for $12,815.22. There was no breakdown for that quote.

While Grady insisted that she provide him with a breakdown, she avoided that request by suggesting it was a package deal and breaking it out would increase the price.

These prices were excessive given the work performed on the car.

Mrs. Pompliano would not allow Grady to take the Corvette unless he signed an invoice requesting payment of $12,815.22. 

Grady paid the full amount on or about November 12, 2021, so that he could reclaim his Corvette.

He is currently in possession of his Corvette.

The case of Garland Stephenson

Stephenson owns a gold 1979 Ford Ranger.

In August of 2020, Stephenson took his Ford to Pomp Boys to get it painted and to have the engine chromed.

Mr. Pompliano assured Stephenson that he could do the chrome, wheels, tires, and rims.

Neither Mr. or Mrs. Pompliano provided Stephenson with an estimate at that time. Instead, they insisted that they would call and tell Stephenson what the cost would be.

But Pomp Boys began unauthorized work on Stephenson’s Ford before ever contacting him with an invoice and continued to incrementally perform unauthorized work on the truck over the course of the following months.

“Pomp Boys planned to perform this unauthorized work with the intent of pressuring Mr. Stephenson into either selling his truck to Pomp Boys or altogether abandoning the truck,” the lawsuit charges.

Around August of 2020, Mr. Stephenson learned that Pomp Boys had generated an invoice for $11,123.10.

On or about September 19, 2020, Pomp Boys updated that invoice to indicate an outstanding balance of $12,687.38.

The invoice was then updated again on or about November 20, 2022, to claim an outstanding balance of $18,986.92.

And the invoice was updated a final time to claim an outstanding balance of $30,607.99.

At least once during these incremental increases in the invoice, Mrs. Pompliano told Stephenson that even though he had not authorized the work, it was not possible to stop work once Pomp Boys had started the repairs.

“This was a fraudulent representation and the work had not already been performed,” the document says. “This was also false, since even if the work had begun, Pomp Boys could have stopped it at any time.”

Once the invoice reached $30,607.99, Stephenson and his wife told Pomp Boys not to do any additional work to the vehicle and requested the balance owed so that they could provide a final payment.

Mrs. Pompliano eventually threatened to sell the Ford if the Stephensons did not come up with the money to pay the invoice.

Stephenson and his wife borrowed around $8,500 from family members and also received about $21,101.50 through loans from Lendmark Financial Services. Mrs. Pompliano offered to help secure financing for the payments and convinced Stephenson to give her the title to the vehicle as collateral.

“This was a deceptive tactic that Ms. Pompliano used to acquire Mr. Stephenson’s title so that she could later attempt to claim the vehicle for herself,” the lawsuit charges. “Once Mr. Stephenson had the funds to pay for the repairs, he went to reclaim the vehicle from Pomp Boys but was told that Pomp Boys had moved the vehicle to South Hill, Virginia.”

Stephenson never authorized Mrs. Pompliano to move the vehicle to Virginia.

Later, Mrs. Pompliano sent a text message to the Stephensons stating that the transporter she scheduled to bring the car back to Roanoke Rapids canceled on her. 

She insisted that she would have the truck in Roanoke Rapids on April 17, 2021.

It is believed the vehicle was on a storage rack at the Roanoke Rapids location earlier than April 17, 2021. “Upon information and belief, the communications about needing to find a transporter was a stalling tactic that Ms. Pompliano used to give Pomp Boys time to formulate another scheme to take possession of Mr. Stephenson’s vehicle.”

On April 17, 2021, the Stephensons went to Pomp Boys’s Roanoke Rapids location to inspect the truck.

Upon inspection, it was apparent that some of the unauthorized repairs on the truck had not been completed.

The air conditioning unit was not in the vehicle and there was no grill on the front of the truck. Nor was the paint job for the bed of the truck completed, despite Pomp Boys charging $5,000 for that work.

When asked about those issues, Mrs. Pompliano told the Stephensons that when Pomp Boys moved the truck to Virginia, they assumed that the Stephensons would not retrieve it. So, Pomp Boys instead began preparing the Ford for resale.

The Stephensons told Mrs. Pompliano that they would not pay her for the additional work that Pomp Boys performed to prepare for sale because they only agreed to the work that was performed for the invoice.

Mrs. Pompliano responded that the Stephensons would have to pay for the unauthorized work because Pomp Boys needed to pay its employees for work performed on the truck.

At that point, Stephenson asked for an email or other document that listed all work Pomp Boys had performed on the truck, which Mrs. Pompliano said she would provide if Stephenson paid down some of the balance due.

Stephenson gave Mrs. Pompliano two checks at that time.

Pomp Boys provided no receipt for those payments and Mrs. Pompliano never sent the email providing the promised list of work.

“After realizing that Ms. Pompliano did not intend to send the requested list of work performed, Mr. Stephenson requested that she return the two checks,” according to the document. “Ms. Pompliano refused to return those checks.”

The Stephensons finally retrieved the Ford on September 3, 2021, along with the title to the truck.

The Ford broke down that same day. “Upon information and belief, Pomp Boys fraudulently represented that Pomp Boys completed repairs on the Ford that had not actually been performed … Pomp Boys charged Mr. Stephenson for repairs that Mr. Stephenson never authorized.”

In total, Mr. Stephenson paid $30,607.99 to Pomp Boys.

The case of Douglas Facchina

Facchina owns a red 1967 Chevy Camaro SS Convertible.

Towards the end of 2021, he drove to the company’s South Hill location to determine whether their mechanics could perform some work on his Camaro.

Mrs. Pompliano informed Facchina that Pomp Boys routinely worked on classic cars and estimated that they could retrieve the necessary parts and complete the work in eight to 12 weeks.

The intake notes on the invoice for the work reflects this understanding of the timeline, noting that Facchina wanted to “have it back for next year.” 

In reliance on the representation that that would be the timeline, Facchina agreed to let Pomp Boys perform the work on his car and left a check for $18,000 as down payment for the requested work.

But Pomp Boys was not able to meet that estimated timeline.

The work has still not been completed and Facchina is still waiting to retrieve his Camaro. “Upon information and belief, Ms. Pompliano’s promise to meet a timeframe of 8- to-12 weeks was a fraudulent misrepresentation intended to persuade Mr. Facchina to pay a large down payment and leave his Camaro with Pomp Boys.”

Mrs. Pompliano later admitted that it would in fact take years for Pomp Boys to do that work.

While waiting on the work to be completed, Facchina made diligent efforts to contact Pomp Boys so that he could stay informed about the progress on his car. Each time he attempted to make contact, Mr. or Mrs. Pompliano would suggest that the parts for his Camaro had still not come in and would insist the repairs would be done once they arrived. “Eventually, the representatives for Pomp Boys stopped taking Mr. Facchina’s calls at all.”

In August of 2022, Facchina finally got through to Mr. Pompliano, who committed to completing the work on the Camaro by the end of that month. “Upon information and belief, Pomp Boys performed no work on Mr. Facchina’s Camaro, and if Pomp Boys did perform any work, it was inadequate.”

In November of 2022, Pomp Boys sent a letter to Facchina informing him that he could pick up his Camaro if he paid the balance owed for purported repairs that supposedly exceeded Mr. Facchina’s downpayment of $18,000.

Facchina, through counsel, then requested an itemized bill supporting any alleged outstanding balance.

Pomp Boys did not respond to that request. “Pomp Boys has ignored that request so that it can accrue alleged storage fees against Mr. Facchina.”

Pomp Boys is still in possession of his Camaro.

The case of Mack Shearin

Shearin owns a 2003 Jaguar XJ Sport and took that vehicle to Pomp Boys for repairs.

Pomp Boys never provided Shearin with a written estimate but did tell him they would keep the costs for repairs under $1,000. “Upon information and belief, this was a fraudulent statement that was intended to induce Mr. Shearin into leaving his car with Pomp Boys.”

Shearin paid a $550 down payment in cash and later made a payment of $468 in cash.

Later, when Pomp Boys finally provided him with an invoice, he learned that Pomp Boys had charged him for the replacement of all four tires of the vehicle, replacement of the front and back struts, and for work on the air conditioning — work Shearin never authorized. “Upon information and belief, Pomp Boys never actually replaced the struts nor repaired the air conditioning. Instead, Pomp Boys misrepresented that those items were repaired even though Pomp Boys never completed that work.”

Mrs. Pompliano claimed that the tires had to be replaced and that it would be a safety violation for him to continue using the old tires. “Upon information and belief, Ms. Pompliano had no basis for those statements, and in any case had never obtained Mr. Shearin’s consent to purchase the tires.”

During a visit to Pomp Boys, Shearin noticed that another Jaguar was parked under his car while it was on the car lift.

It appeared to Shearin that employees were removing parts from his Jaguar. When asked about this, Mrs. Pompliano refused to respond. “Upon information and belief, Pomp Boys used parts from Mr. Shearin’s Jaguar to repair the other vehicle. Upon further investigation of the vehicle, Mr. Shearin also noticed that one of Pomp Boys agents had placed a wooden screw through the bumper to stabilize it, perhaps because a part had been used on the other car.”

But, the lawsuit says, the use of a wooden screw does not conform to established repair procedures for a 2003 Jaguar XJ Sport.

“Though Mr. Shearin was not satisfied with Pomp Boys’s service, Ms. Pompliano threatened that she would auction off Mr. Shearin’s car in ten days if he did not pay the remainder of the $3,500.

In light of that threat, Mr. Sherin paid the balance of $3,500.”

When Shearin paid the balance to retrieve his car, Mrs. Pompliano made him sign a document and then refused to give him a copy. “Even after Mr. Shearin paid in full for the work performed and picked up his vehicle, Pomp Boys placed a lien on his vehicle. This lien has prevented Mr. Shearin from selling his car. Moreover, Ms. Pompliano has refused to return Mr. Shearin’s certificate of title, which Mr. Shearin had given to Ms. Pompliano after she claimed she could help him clean the title on the car.”

The lawsuit charges this was a deceptive statement intended to induce Shearin into providing Mrs. Pompliano with the title to the car so that she could somehow claim the car or cloud the title.

The title has still not been mailed to Shearin, who is now in possession of his car.

The case of Frank Dailey

Frank Dailey owns a 1977 and 1988 Chevrolet.

He took both of those vehicles to Pomp Boys for repairs, initially only dropping off the 1988 model.

Pomp Boys informed Dailey that they would start the repairs quickly and assured him that they would get him an estimate once they looked at the 1988 Chevrolet and assessed the needed repairs.

Thereafter, he also brought in his 1977 Chevrolet.

He asked Pomp Boys to swap out the motors between the 1988 Chevrolet and the 1977 Chevrolet.

Mrs. Pompliano claimed that they would remove the 1977 Chevrolet’s motor and place it in the 1988 Chevrolet. She indicated that the 1977 Chevrolet would then be outfitted with a new motor. “Upon information and belief, Pomp Boys does not have the experience or expertise to perform the work requested by Mr. Dailey and only agreed to do the work to induce him to leave the vehicles in Pomp Boy’s possession,” planned to charge improper storage fees, and place unsupported liens on his vehicles.

Mrs. Pompliano insisted that Pomp Boys would need to order parts before they could determine the cost to include on any invoice. An invoice was never sent for either car and the repairs did not promptly begin.

Throughout this time Pomp Boys continually increased the alleged price for repairs.

When Dailey inquired about the repairs, agents informed him that they tried to place the 1977 motor in the 1988 truck, but the motor would not fit.

It is believed that Pomp Boys misrepresented that the 1977 motor would not fit in the 1988 vehicle and that Mrs. Pompliano also misrepresented that the 1977 would be replaced with a new motor — a new motor was never placed in that vehicle.

Eventually, Mrs. Pompliano advised Dailey that if he could not pay the invoice from Pomp Boys, he had the option to pick up the 1988 Chevrolet only if he agreed to sign over the title for the 1977 Chevrolet.

He refused to give over the title for the 1977 Chevrolet.

When Dailey requested documents requiring his signature, Mrs. Pompliano refused to provide them and insisted that the documents were in the computer. She also claimed that this was the reason she could not refund any money.

Dailey then requested that his vehicles be returned. In response, she claimed that Dailey owed $3,500 in storage fees.

Dailey paid a total of $1,400 to Pomp Boys. “Upon information and belief, Pomp Boys never completed any work on either of Mr. Dailey’s vehicles. As a result, the amount requested for release of his vehicles is excessive. Upon information and belief, without Mr. Dailey’s consent, Pomp Boys moved his vehicles from North Carolina to Virginia.”

Pomp Boys is still in possession of both vehicles.

The case of Oscar Chatmon

Chatmon owns a 1974 Plymouth Duster.

In May of 2021, Chatmon had his vehicle towed to Pomp Boys and asked for an estimate on any repairs needed.

Mrs. Pompliano did not provide Chatmon with a quote until two months after they had taken possession of his vehicle and finally told him that the repairs would cost about $26,500. She also advised that he could stop work at any point and that the repairs would be done by February of 2022.

At that point Chatmon approved $26,500 worth of work.

Although the written estimate had additional information about other stages of work, the authorized work was only supposed to cost $26,500.

While Chatmon signed several documents during his business dealings with Mrs. Pompliano, she never provided him with copies.

She also began recommending work that, upon information and belief, was not needed, such as repairs to the vehicle’s brakes.

Chatmon began to question some of the recommended repairs. 

For example, he asked why Pomp Boys was charging $5,000 for a paint job without doing any body work.

At this point, Chatmon believed that the price he was being charged for the work Pomp Boys was performing was excessive.

When he went to retrieve his car, Mrs. Pompliano claimed that he owed Pomp Boys an additional $9,000.

In total, Pomp Boys requested $29,020.46 from Chatmon.

Chatmon did not believe Pomp Boys had completed the first stage of repairs that the parties had agreed to, and he wanted to inspect the vehicle to see if the alleged repairs had actually been completed.

Mrs. Pompliano refused to allow Chatmon to inspect the vehicle, and she later locked the vehicle up.

Pomp Boys never finished the last two stages of the work, however, the lawsuit charges that Mrs. Pompliano charged Chatmon for both uncompleted stages of work and threatened to place a mechanic’s lien on the car.

While Mrs. Pompliano had Chatmon sign various documents throughout their interactions; she never provided him with copies. “Upon information and belief, Ms. Pompliano made several misrepresentations to Mr. Chatmon about the necessary repairs, and the costs of those repairs to his Duster to persuade him to authorize additional work and entrust Pomp Boys with his vehicle.”

Chatmon paid two installments of $10,000 to Pomp Boys, the first on July 30, 2021, and the second on December 8, 2021.

Pomp Boys moved his vehicle from North Carolina to Virginia.

Pomp Boys is still in possession of the vehicle.

The case of Jessie Burnette

Burnette owns a 1985 Chevy Silverado.

After deciding that he wanted some work performed on the Silverado, he took his vehicle to Pomp Boys and worked out an agreement where he would buy the necessary parts for repair and Pomp Boys would perform the necessary labor.

Pomp Boys did not provide Burnette with an estimate for any repairs at that time and thereafter learned of charges that were unauthorized or overpriced.

Pomp Boys charged  Burnette $125 for unauthorized work on a transmission leak.

Pomp Boys agents also misled Burnette into believing that the requested paint job for his Silverado would only cost $2,500. Pomp Boys ultimately charged him $5,200 for that work. That final amount is greater than 10 percent of the initial estimate of $2,500.

Mrs. Pompliano also tried to convince Mr. Burnette to authorize additional work on the Silverado. “Upon information and belief, the work Ms. Pompliano suggested Mr. Burnette authorize was unnecessary and was intended to fraudulently induce Mr. Burnette into authorizing further work.”

Before taking his Silverado to Pomp Boys, Burnette had another mechanic repair the bed of his truck. Even so, Pomp Boys charged him $1,200 for repairs to the truck bed. “Upon information and belief, Pomp Boys overcharged for other alleged labor to the truck.”

In total, Mr. Burnette paid $32,028 to Pomp Boys so that he could reclaim his vehicle.

The case of Regina Barnes

Barnes took her daughter’s 2013 Nissan Juke to Pomp Boys in September of 2021.

At the time, the Nissan was making a strange noise, and Barnes had the vehicle towed to Pomp Boys.

It was then, according to the lawsuit, that Pomp Boys developed a scheme to induce Barnes into leaving the vehicle at their shop for an extended period of time so that it could either manufacture additional reasons to charge for repairs or ultimately charge improper storage fees.

After running a diagnostic test, Mrs. Pompliano recommended that the timing chain for the Nissan be replaced. She provided an estimate of $1,500 to fix the issue with $500 paid upfront to order the part.

Barnes paid the down payment of $500 but never signed a written contract.

After receiving the timing chain, Mrs. Pompliano insisted that the Nissan instead needed a whole new engine and indicated that the vehicle would not be safe to drive or would otherwise be damaged if it was driven without the motor being replaced.

She told Barnes that some of its representatives would check around and get a good engine although the lawsuit says the engine did not actually need to be replaced. It did not even need to be repaired. “Upon information and belief, the claim that the engine needed to be replaced was a fraudulent statement intended to induce Ms. Barnes into leaving the Nissan at Pomp Boys and authorizing extensive unnecessary repairs on the vehicle.”

Months passed by without Pomp Boys providing any update to Barnes. When she finally got in touch with a representative of Pomp Boys, she was told that they had not been able to find an engine.

Barnes then received a letter from the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles suggesting that Pomp Boys was going to sell the Nissan because of unpaid storage fees.

She had not been billed for any storage fees, nor would any fees have been appropriate.

She asked Mrs. Pompliano about the letter and was told it had been sent in error and that she could ignore it.

Barnes then received a second letter from the Division of Motor Vehicles indicating that the vehicle would be sold for unpaid storage fees.

Again, Mrs. Pompliano told Barnes to ignore the letter.

Pomp Boys still has the vehicle but has not performed any work to repair the issue.

As a result, if there are in fact storage fees — despite the assurances to the contrary — they are excessive in relation to the work involved on the Nissan.

Eventually, Pomp Boys stopped talking with Barnes at all.

Pomp Boys has refused to give Barnes the final bill and has refused to allow her to pay any balance owed. The invoice reflects amounts that are higher than 10 percent of what was initially estimated for the repair of the Nissan.

Pomp Boys moved Barnes’s vehicle from North Carolina to Virginia and is still in possession of it.

The case of Dennis Harvey

Harvey owns a 1979 Pontiac and took the vehicle to Pomp Boys for repairs.

Pomp Boys provided an initial estimate of $1,200 to complete the work.

After he left the Pontiac with Pomp Boys, an agent mishandled the vehicle, performed unauthorized repairs, and then charged excessive storage rates for holding the vehicle on their lot.

While the Pontiac was in the company’s possession, a tail light was broken, rain leaked into the car, and someone dented the car. An agent of Pomp Boys then repainted the dented area.

Pomp Boys also performed unauthorized work, installing a T-top on the vehicle when Harvey only requested a quote and never authorized installation.

Installation of the T-top is not indicated on the initial estimate that Pomp Boys provided to Harvey.

When Harvey returned to pick up the vehicle, he requested a written copy of the estimate for $1,200, which Pomp Boys provided. 

Because Harvey is on a fixed disability income, Pomp Boys assured him that they would work with him to get the bill paid.

Harvey was shocked to learn that he instead owed around $5,000 for storage fees. Pomp Boys never discussed storage fees with Harvey until he came to pay the $1,200.

Mrs. Pompliano then offered to purchase Mr. Harvey’s car for $3,000.

When he refused to sell his Pontiac, Pomp Boys attempted to place a lien on his car so that it could claim the vehicle as its own.

“On several occasions, Mr. Harvey requested copies of documents that Pomp Boys caused him to sign. Ms. Pompliano refused to provide those documents.”

In total, Harvey paid $200 to Pomp Boys.

The car was moved to Virginia and remains in the company’s possession.

The case of Lorenzo Hicks

Hicks owned a 2002 Triumph motorcycle and took the bike to Pomp Boys to repair electrical issues.

Pomp Boys never provided Hicks with an estimate and instead told him that they would call him back about what needed to be done to fix the motorcycle.

About two days later, without ever providing an estimate or receiving authorization to perform any work, Mrs. Pompliano called Hicks and said she did not think Pomp Boys could fix the problem, but claimed that he still owed a $1,600 diagnostic fee.

Hicks never authorized that $1,600 diagnostic test.

About a week later, Mrs. Pompliano told Hicks that the bike was unfixable. Pomp Boys demanded a $1,000 storage fee on top of $1,600 for alleged diagnostic work.

It is believed Pomp Boys never ran a diagnostic test nor attempted to fix the motorcycle.

Pomp Boys never added any additional parts to the motorcycle and then attempted to place a lien on the bike.

Pomp Boys never completed the process for obtaining the mechanic’s lien and the bike was moved from North Carolina to Virginia.

Pomp Boys is still in possession of the motorcycle.

The case of Timothy Green

Green owns a 2005 Toyota Avalon and stopped by Pomp Boys to request repairs to his Toyota after seeing all the cars outside on the lot.

During that initial consultation, Pomp Boys ran a diagnostics test for the car.

Green asked Pomp Boys to check his brakes since they were new but squealing, as well as make repairs to the front window, air conditioning, and shocks.

He made a down payment of $1,600 in cash so that Pomp Boys would complete the work.

He never signed a written contract with Pomp Boys.

The next day, Mrs. Pompliano called Green into the office and showed him a copy of the invoice sheet for the work to be performed. At that time, there were no prices listed on the invoice.

When Green returned to pick up the car a few days later, Pomp Boys requested a total of $4,974.87. Green paid the remaining balance of $3,374.87. “Mr. Green was hesitant to pay that price because he believed it was too high for the work performed, but he realized that he would be unable to reclaim the car without paying the balance on the invoice.

“Although Mr. Green had already purchased a new compressor for the air conditioning in his vehicle, he later learned that Pomp Boys bought a new compressor and charged him for that part as well as 10 hours of labor for repairing the air conditioning.”

The invoice from Pomp Boys indicates that Green’s vehicle had a “new ac compressor,” but “that did not stop Pomp Boys charging Mr. Green $900 for a compressor.”

After picking up his car, Green noticed that the brakes were still squealing and learned that the heat was not working.

Although he brought the car back to them, Pomp Boys never repaired these issues.

Green is currently in possession of his Avalon.

The case of Vickie Evans

Evans owns a 1971 Chevrolet Corvette, which she came into possession of after her husband Monty Evans passed away.

In 2021 Mr. Evans took the car to Pomp Boys for repairs.

Mr. Pompliano gave him a verbal estimate for the requested work, but he did not provide a written estimate or inform that storage fees would be charged against him.

Later that same year, Mr. Evans told Mr. Pompliano that he had to undergo medical treatment and asked whether he could return to pick up the vehicle after treatment was completed.

His condition worsened and he passed away on December 9, 2021.

“Vivian Pompliano used Monty Evans’s passing as an excuse to charge excessive storage fees,” according to the lawsuit.

Following his death Mrs. Evans contacted Pomp Boys and told them that Mr. Evans had passed. She requested a copy of all invoices, all documents signed by Mr. Evans, and dates during which storage fees allegedly accrued.

Mrs. Pompliano refused to provide the requested documentation to support the bills. “While Ms. Evans was preparing to bury her husband at Arlington National Cemetery, Vivian Pompliano called multiple times threatening to sell Mr. Evans’s Corvette if approximately $10,000 was not paid.”

Mrs. Evans and her counsel have since requested documentation outlining work requested, work performed, documents authorizing the work to be done, and dates during which storage was charged, but Pomp Boys has refused to provide the requested documentation supporting their claim for money owed.

Both Mr. and Mrs. and Pompliano made misrepresentations to Mr. Evans and his wife about the cost of repairs for the 1971 Corvette and the period during which the vehicle was stored. “Upon information and belief, Pomp Boys also charged storage fees for when the Corvette was not in its possession. Ms. Pompliano and Mr. Pompliano made misrepresentations about the period during which the Corvette was stored, whether storage fees would be charged, and the amount of storage fees that have accrued.

“Ms. Pompliano and Mr. Pompliano knew or should have known that the misrepresentations made were false, misleading, and deceptive; said actions and omissions by Mr. Pompliano and Ms. Pompliano were calculated and intended to deceive and mislead Monty Evans and then Vickie Evans. Monty Evans and Vickie Evans were, in fact, deceived and misled by those statements.”

The vehicle was moved from North Carolina to Virginia and Pomp Boys still possesses it.

The case of Thurman King

King owns a 1980 Chevrolet Chevette.

Around January of 2022, King bought a carburetor from an auto repair shop.

He took that carburetor to a local repair shop, where an employee told him that he needed a heater for the carburetor.

King could not locate a heater, so he went to Pomp Boys and asked if they could get a heater for his carburetor. 

Mr. Pompliano told King that he had to bring his car in so they could get that heater, a statement the lawsuit says was fraudulent and intended to induce King into leaving his car at Pomp Boys.

Once King brought his vehicle to Pomp Boys, Mr. Pompliano asked him if he would be willing to sell the Chevette. King declined.

Pomp Boys assured King that they could handle the requested repairs with the heater for the carburetor and also agreed to perform work on the vehicle’s starter.

King purchased a starter himself and delivered it to Pomp Boys.

After bringing the car in, one of the company’s agents provided King with an invoice for $661.

Though higher than he expected, King verbally approved that invoice.

Over the next three months, Pomp Boys continually insisted that they could not find the carburetor heater needed.

With his cousin’s help, around April of 2022, King then went online to find the heater himself, and he found the part for $61.

Mrs. Pompliano confirmed that the heater Mr. King found online looked like the right part. She sent information about that heater to Mr. Pompliano and he agreed that it looked right before advising King to go ahead and order it.

Pomp Boys later charged Mr. King $112 for that same part, which King had already purchased and provided to Pomp Boys.

A few months later, in June or July of 2022, Mr. King returned to pick up his Chevette. When he arrived, Pomp Boys told him that they still had a little work to perform on the vehicle.

At that time, Mrs. Pompliano stated, from the top of her head, that the bill would be $3,100.

When King later asked for the bill to be printed, the invoice showed $4,200.

While King approved of the earlier invoice for $661, he never approved of those higher invoices.

The only work King asked Pomp Boys to perform was putting the heater which he provided on the carburetor and putting a starter in the vehicle.

Mrs. Pompliano claimed that they would not let King drive off with broken rods in his engine, though it is unclear how those rods were ever broken since King drove the Chevette to Pomp Boys without any issue.

Many of the repairs listed on the invoice were never actually performed. “Upon information and belief, some of the parts Pomp Boys claims to have repaired, such as broken rods and wiring behind the engine, were unnecessary and Pomp Boys misrepresented that they were needed.

Upon information and belief, Ms. Pompliano used white out to change a copy of that invoice to state that only one rod was broken rather than four.”

King did not claim his Chevette because he refused to pay an invoice that included inflated prices and charges for work that he never authorized.

The vehicle was moved from North Carolina to Virginia.

The recent invoice from Pomp Boys indicates that King now owes $8,800 to Pomp Boys, with those additional costs coming from improper storage fees.

The case of Jermaine Anderson

Anderson owns a 1997 Grand Marquis Mercury.

Towards the end of 2020, Anderson took his Mercury to Pomp Boys for an oil change, the replacement of spark-plug wires, repair of window locks, and the replacement of a sensor so that the car’s engine would start up more efficiently.

Mrs. Pompliano did not provide an estimate at the time Anderson dropped off his Mercury.

Though Anderson only asked that one sensor be replaced, Mrs. Pompliano orally suggested that Anderson’s car needed multiple sensors replaced. Upon information and belief, she had no basis for that statement.

Anderson went back to pick his Mercury up about three weeks later. He took $1,500 out of the bank so that he could pay for the repairs.

When he arrived to pick up the car, Mrs. Pompliano informed him that the total cost for the repairs was now $10,000 because of the additional sensors.

Pomp Boys never provided Anderson with any invoices or paperwork regarding the price for the repairs.

When Anderson asked if he could get the keys to test whether the vehicle would start up, Mrs. Pompliano refused to turn them over.

Anderson asked for paperwork to see if Pomp Boys did $10,000 worth of work, but Mrs. Pompliano avoided this request and started talking about other topics. “Upon information and belief, Ms. Pompliano avoided this request because Pomp Boys did not provide $10,000 worth of work or failed to properly document any work that was completed. Upon information and belief, Ms. Pompliano and Pomp Boys wanted to take advantage of Mr. Anderson and claim his Mercury for themselves to resell it to a third party.”

Finding that price to be excessive for the work he requested, Anderson asked if they could work something out. 

Mrs. Pompliano suggested he could put $1,500 down for another car on the lot and pay $230 per month. In exchange, Mrs. Pompliano would keep Anderson’s Mercury.

Because Anderson already owned the Mercury, he was not interested in that offer. Realizing that he would be unable to reclaim his car without paying $10,000, he left the car at the Pomp Boys lot.

The car was moved to Virginia.

Mrs. Pompliano has since told Anderson that Pomp Boys sold the Mercury to someone else and suggested that he could buy it back from that third-party buyer.

“Pomp Boys never had any right to sell Mr. Anderson’s car,” the lawsuit says.

Anderson also owned a Mercedes that was either a 1971 or 1972 model and offered to sell that vehicle to Mrs. Pompliano for $4,000.

Mrs. Pompliano offered to give Anderson $1,000 upfront and the remaining $3,000 later. He agreed to that arrangement but Mrs. Pompliano never paid the remaining $3,000.

When Anderson went to Pomp Boys to inquire about the remaining balance for the Mercedes, he realized that the vehicle was not present on the Pomp Boys Roanoke Rapids lot.

Mrs. Pompliano then made Anderson sign a piece of paper and then left without returning. Anderson does not know how to read or write. “Upon information and belief, Ms. Pompliano knew that Mr. Anderson did not know how to read or write and sought to use that to her advantage by making him sign an agreement that was detrimental to the benefit that Mr. Anderson bargained for in selling the Mercedes.”

Mrs. Pompliano relocated the Mercedes to either her house or South Hill.