Elfaridi v. Mercedes-Benz United States, LLC
| Decision Date | 27 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:16 CV 1896 CDP |
| Parties | SAID ELFARIDI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Plaintiffs Hend Aitoufella1 and Dean and Katherine Jarman bring this putative class action against Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, and Daimler AG, claiming to represent purchasers and lessees of all 2003-2015 Mercedes-Benz vehicles equipped with factory-installed panoramic sunroofs, which plaintiffs allege suffer from a defect that can cause the sunroofs to spontaneously shatter. (ECF No. 36 at ¶¶ 76, 80).
Plaintiff Aitoufella seeks to represent both a nationwide class and a Missouri sub-class and asserts claims for: breach of express warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) and Missouri state law; unjust enrichment; violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"); and, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Missouri law.
The Jarmans seek to represent both a nationwide class and a Washington sub-class and assert claims for unjust enrichment, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("WCPA"), and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Washington law.
MBUSA and Daimler AG (collectively, defendants or Mercedes) seek dismissal, arguing that each count fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Daimler also asks the Court to dismiss or strike plaintiffs' request for punitive damages. Because I find plaintiff Aitoufella has sufficiently stated a claim for breach of express warranty under Missouri law and the MMWA against defendant MBUSA, I will deny defendants' motion to dismiss those claims. However, I will grant defendants' motion as to the remaining claims.
Mercedes manufactures, markets, and distributes automobiles in the United States. Starting in the 2000s, Mercedes manufactured and sold vehicles with an optional upgrade of a factory-installed panoramic sunroof. The panoramic sunroofs are made of tempered glass featuring large areas of ceramic paint or ceramic enamel. Plaintiffs allege the use of ceramic paint or enamel makes the sunroofs prone to spontaneously bursting. Plaintiffs state that "given the size,thinness, curvature, ceramic print [sic], and attachment to the vehicle's frame, the panoramic sunroof glass in Class Vehicles is weakened and not capable of withstanding the stresses one would reasonably anticipate it would encounter in ordinary usage, making the glass defective in that it is substantially likely to shatter." (ECF No. 36 at ¶ 35).
Plaintiffs further allege that Mercedes was aware of this defect because: thirty-three Mercedes owners reported an incident of their sunroof spontaneously shattering with the National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA);3 Mercedes internally monitors the NHTSA for information; on May 12, 2014, the NHTSA opened an investigation of Kia Sorento panoramic sunroofs; on May 6, 2015, an article was published on the web regarding incidents of panoramic sunroofs shattering in Mercedes-Benz vehicles; and, in 2016, in connection with its investigation into the Kia Sorrento, the NHTSA sent a letter to Mercedes in 2016 requesting information.
Plaintiffs also maintain that the shattering sunroofs pose a danger to vehicle occupants. Plaintiffs state that this safety risk was recognized in panoramic sunroof recalls initiated by Volkswagen, Hyundai, and Audi.
In 2013, plaintiffs Dean and Katherine Jarman purchased a new Mercedes C300. In connection with the purchase of this vehicle, MBUSA provided a New Vehicle Limited Warranty (NVLW).4 The NVLW provides that:
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA) warrants to the original and each subsequent owner of a new Mercedes-Benz vehicle that any authorized Mercedes-Benz Center will make any repairs or replacements necessary to correct defects in material or workmanship arising during the warranty period.
The NVLW states that the warranty period is "for 48 months or 50,000 miles whichever comes first." (ECF No. 47-1 at 14). The NVLW contains two provisions specific to glass. The first provision, contained in the "Items Which Are Covered" section, states: "Glass is warranted against stress cracks for 12 months or 12,000 miles, whichever occurs first." Id. at 15. Then, in the section entitled "Items Which Are Not Covered," under the heading, "DAMAGE TO GLASS" the NVLW states: "Glass breakage or scratches are not covered unless positive physical proof of a manufacturing defect can be established." (ECF No. 47-1 at 15; ECF No. 36 at ¶ 58).5
On October 26, 2016, the Jarmans' sunroof cracked while they were driving. They drove to the dealership, which denied coverage under the warranty for the repair. After paying to have the sunroof repaired, Mr. Jarman was told that the car had been inspected and the cause of the shattering was external.
In July of 2015, Plaintiff Hend Aitoufella and her husband Said Elfaridi purchased a used 2013 Mercedes GLK350. In April 2016, the panoramic sunroof cracked while Aitoufella was driving in the vehicle. Because Aitoufella was told "the warranty does not cover sunroof damage," she paid to have it repaired. (ECF No. 36 at ¶ 63).
On December 5, 2016, plaintiffs filed a seven-count class action complaint in this Court against MBUSA and its parent company Daimler AG, alleging that Mercedes' panoramic sunroofs are defective across 14 different Mercedes-Benz models. In the amended complaint, plaintiff Aitoufella asserts the following claims: 1) Count I - violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.; 2) Count II - unjust enrichment; 3) Count III - violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA); 4) Count IV - breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and 5) Count V - breach of express warranty. The Jarmans assert claims for 1) Count II - unjust enrichment; 2) CountVI - violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA); and 3) Count VII - breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
Defendant MBUSA filed the instant motion to dismiss on June 5, 2017. On December 20, 2017, Daimler AG filed its motion to dismiss, incorporating by reference and joining in all arguments set forth by MBUSA. Daimler also asks the Court to dismiss or strike plaintiffs' request for punitive damages.
The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. When considering a 12(b)(6) motion, the court assumes the factual allegations of a complaint are true and construes them in favor of the plaintiff. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-27 (1989).
Rule 8(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the Supreme Court clarified that Rule 8(a)(2) requires complaints to contain "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). Specifically, to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain enough factual allegations, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief "that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The issue in considering such a motion is not whether the plaintiff will ultimatelyprevail, but whether the plaintiff is entitled to present evidence in support of the claim. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
Defendants argue that Counts III and VI should be dismissed because plaintiffs fail to allege facts establishing the basic elements of a MMPA or WCPA claim. Specifically, defendants contend that plaintiffs knew the panoramic sunroofs were defective, failed to disclose this defect to consumers, and affirmatively misrepresented the safety and superior engineering of the sunroofs through advertising statements. Defendants further maintain that the MMPA and WCPA claims, which sound in fraud, fail to meet Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirements.
The Missouri Merchandising Practices Act makes unlawful the "act, use or employment by any person of any deception, fraud, false pretense, misrepresentation, unfair practice, or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.020. In MMPA actions, courts apply the more stringent pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) pertaining to fraud. Johnsen v. Honeywell Int'l Inc., No. 4:14CV594 RLW, 2016 WL 1242545, at *2 (E.D. Mo.Mar. 29, 2016). Under Rule 9(b), "the circumstances constituting fraud" must be "state[d] with particularity." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
Here, Aitoufella claims defendants 1) made actionable misrepresentations, and 2) concealed and omitted material facts about the defective sunroofs. With regard to an alleged misrepresentation, Rule 9(b) requires a plaintiff to allege facts such as "time, place and contents of false representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what was obtained or given up thereby." Johnsen, 2016 WL 1242545, at *9-10. See also Abels v. Farmers Commodities Corp., 259 F.3d 910, 920 (8th Cir. 2001).
In contrast, where the MMPA claim concerns an omission of a material fact and not an affirmative misrepresentation, to meet Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard, plaintiffs must allege with specificity the time and place of the conduct complained of, the content omitted, the identity of the person who omitted it, and what was obtained or given up thereby. See Budach v. NIBCO, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-04324, 2015 WL 3853298, at *7 (W.D. Mo. June 22, 2015).
To the extent Aitoufella's MMPA claim is based upon an affirmative misrepresentation, defendants claim dismissal is...
To continue reading
Request your trial