Factory Motor Parts Lawsuits: Hoffberg, Sanders, and C&D Technologies Cases

Factory Motor Parts, the Eagan, Minnesota-based auto parts distributor formally known as Elliott Auto Supply Co., Inc., has been involved in a series of lawsuits over the past decade covering breach of contract, a disputed bankruptcy acquisition, employment discrimination, wage-and-hour claims, and a federal congressional inquiry. The most significant Factory Motor Parts lawsuits include a multimillion-dollar battery distribution judgment won by C&D Technologies and Trojan Battery, a failed suit against Fisher Auto Parts tied to the 2023 Auto Plus bankruptcy auction, and an age discrimination case filed by a former worker in Illinois.¹

C&D Technologies Battery Distribution Judgment

The costliest case on Factory Motor Parts’ record is a breach of contract action brought by battery suppliers C&D Technologies, Inc. and Trojan Battery Co. The suppliers filed suit on July 7, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, based on an exclusive distribution agreement signed in October 2021.²

C&D said Factory Motor Parts failed to pay for wholesale batteries and did not open required physical locations or subdistributors in Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota by a June 30, 2022 deadline set in the contract. When the breaches went uncured, C&D terminated the agreement in April 2023 and sued for more than $4.9 million in overdue payments. Total damages were eventually estimated at roughly $10.8 million.³

Factory Motor Parts filed three counterclaims: wrongful termination, breach of the agreement’s exclusivity clause (alleging C&D had been secretly negotiating with a competitor, Continental Battery Company), and violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On September 27, 2024, Judge Kelley B. Hodge dismissed all three. The court found the contract required Factory Motor Parts to have locations or subdistributors actually operational by the deadline, not merely committed to opening them. On exclusivity, nothing in the agreement barred C&D from talking to other potential distributors while Factory Motor Parts’ contract remained in effect. The good-faith claim failed because the agreement expressly gave C&D “sole discretion” to terminate for uncured breaches.³

Factory Motor Parts tried to revive the good-faith counterclaim and add an equitable estoppel defense, arguing C&D had induced it to increase battery orders while quietly planning to hand the distribution territory to Continental. On July 29, 2025, the court denied that request as futile and granted C&D summary judgment, finding no genuine dispute that Factory Motor Parts had breached by failing to open the required locations and failing to pay invoices on time.² Final judgment was entered on January 20, 2026, and the last docket activity, a stipulation and order, was filed in March 2026.⁴

Auto Plus Bankruptcy Acquisition and the Fisher Auto Parts Suit

In May 2023, Factory Motor Parts acquired 163 locations from IEH Auto Parts Holding LLC, which operated the Auto Plus chain, through a Chapter 11 auction in the Southern District of Texas. The deal closed on June 12, 2023, and extended Factory Motor Parts’ footprint into Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York.⁵⁶

Factory Motor Parts was not the original winning bidder. Fisher Auto Parts and co-bidder Parts Authority had submitted the highest offer. At the May 19, 2023 bid-approval hearing, Auto Plus counsel disclosed that the two firms had “circumvented the auction bidding process.” One or more Auto Plus employees had shared confidential information with Fisher and Parts Authority, including employee identities, compensation details, sales and revenue data, and customer lists, none of which had been made available to other bidders. The bankruptcy court disqualified the Fisher–Parts Authority bid, and Factory Motor Parts, as the next-highest bidder, was approved.⁷

Factory Motor Parts later alleged that Fisher used the improperly obtained information to poach employees and customers from the newly acquired locations and sued Fisher in the District of Minnesota in late 2023, asserting breach of contract and related claims. On February 12, 2024, Judge Eric C. Tostrud dismissed the case without prejudice, ruling that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Fisher and that venue was improper in Minnesota.⁸ The available record does not show that Factory Motor Parts refiled in another jurisdiction.

Hoffberg Age Discrimination Case

Dennis Hoffberg sued Elliott Auto Supply Co., doing business as Factory Motor Parts, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in 2021. The case was an individual claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, not a class action.⁹

The litigation stretched over three years. At a December 2022 settlement conference, the court noted that Factory Motor Parts had sent representatives who lacked full settlement authority and considered sanctions. The case was reassigned to Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins in February 2023 and terminated on August 22, 2024. The public docket does not specify whether the end came through settlement, summary judgment, or another disposition.⁹

Sanders Wage-and-Hour Collective Action

In January 2019, a former courier and warehouse worker filed a proposed collective action in Arizona federal court against Tristate Logistics entities, Factory Motor Parts International, and several related companies. The plaintiff alleged she had been misclassified as exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. She said she was paid a flat daily rate of $96 regardless of hours worked while making deliveries, stocking warehouse shelves, and cleaning bathrooms. The complaint argued she lacked the managerial responsibilities and independent judgment required for an overtime exemption and should have been paid time-and-a-half for overtime hours.¹⁰ The outcome is not reflected in the available record.

Congressional Inquiry Into Chinese Auto Parts Imports

In September 2024, a bipartisan group of federal lawmakers sent letters to six major U.S. auto parts retailers, including Factory Motor Parts, asking whether they had purchased products from Qingdao Sunsong, a Chinese manufacturer then under federal investigation for alleged tariff evasion. Signers included House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party Chairman John Moolenaar, Ranking Member Raja Krishnamoorthi, Senator Bill Cassidy, and Senator Sherrod Brown.¹¹

The lawmakers alleged Qingdao Sunsong was transshipping Chinese-made parts through Thailand to avoid the 25% Section 301 tariffs imposed in 2019 on automotive parts from China. They cited the company’s own stock exchange disclosures showing that assembly in Thailand added only 12 to 23 cents of value per power steering hose assembly, or 4% to 8% of assembly value, well below the “substantial transformation” threshold required by U.S. law to change a product’s country of origin. The letter also noted that the Department of Homeland Security had raided Qingdao Sunsong’s U.S. subsidiary in Ohio in January 2024, and warned the retailers that purchasing unlawfully transshipped goods could expose them to criminal and civil liability under federal customs law. Factory Motor Parts and the other recipients were asked to respond in writing by September 20, 2024.¹² No public response from Factory Motor Parts or further congressional action targeting the company specifically has appeared in the available record.

Earlier Litigation and Regulatory Matters

Factory Motor Parts’ legal activity reaches back further. In August 2012, the company filed a federal declaratory judgment action in the District of Minnesota against General Parts International, owner of the Carquest Auto Parts chain, asking the court to confirm it was free to hire former Carquest employees who were not bound by enforceable non-compete agreements.¹³ The final outcome does not appear in the public record reviewed.

On the regulatory side, the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry opened a complaint-based inspection of Factory Motor Parts’ Eagan facility in August 2024. Inspectors found one safety violation. The company was assessed an initial penalty of $3,500, reduced to $2,450 through a formal settlement in September 2024, and the case was closed on November 12, 2024.¹⁴

1
Factory Motor Parts. About Us
2
Business CCH. C&D Technologies v. Elliott Auto Supply Co.
3
GovInfo. C&D Technologies v. Elliott Auto Supply Co., Case No. 2:23-cv-02608
4
CourtListener. C&D Technologies v. Elliott Auto Supply Co.
5
GovInfo. Elliott Auto Supply Co. v. Fisher Auto Parts, Inc.
6
Factory Motor Parts. AutoPlus Acquisition
7
Bloomberg Law. Sale by Icahn’s Auto Plus Approved After First Bid Disqualified
8
GovInfo. Elliott Auto Supply Co. v. Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., Case No. 0:23-cv-02990
9
CourtListener. Hoffberg v. Elliott Auto Supply Co.
10
ClassAction.org. Lawsuit: Tristate Logistics, Factory Motor Parts International Misclassified Worker as OT-Exempt
11
WIFC. Lawmakers Probe if US Retailers Bought Chinese Auto Parts That Evaded Tariffs
12
Senator Cassidy’s Office. Cassidy, Moolenaar Warn U.S. Auto Part Firms Against Importing Illegal Chinese Products Evading Tariffs
13
GovInfo. Elliott Auto Supply Co. v. General Parts Distribution LLC, Case No. 0:12-cv-01185
14
OSHA. Inspection Detail: Factory Motor Parts