Elsayed v. Maserati N. Am., Inc.

Decision Date18 October 2016
Docket NumberCase No.: SACV 16-00918-CJC(DFMx)
Parties Mohamed ELSAYED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MASERATI NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Central District of California

Jonathan A. Michaels, Kristen Rodriguez, Kathryn Jeanine Harvey, MLG Automotive Law APLC, Newport Beach, CA, for Plaintiff.

Eric Y. Kizirian, Dyanne Jinhyung Cho, Michael Keith Grimaldi, Zourik Zarifian, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Mohamed Elsayed brought this action against Defendant Maserati North America, Inc. ("Maserati"). (Dkt. 12 (First Amended Complaint [hereinafter "FAC"] ).) His complaint alleges that Maserati's remote keyless entry system [hereinafter "RKE"] in its models 20142016 Ghibli vehicles has a life threatening defect. (Id. ¶¶ 1–3.) Plaintiff avers to represent a nationwide class of Ghibli owners or lessors in four causes of action: (1) Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(1), (2) Breach of Express Warranty, (3) Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose, and (4) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantibility. (Id. ¶¶ 36, 46–74.) He brings an additional six claims on behalf of himself and a subclass of California Ghibli purchasers or lessors: (5) Products Liability–Negligent Design, (6) Products Liability–Failure to Warn, (7) Breach of Express Warranty (seeking addition statutory penalties pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(c) ), (8) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantibility (seeking civil penalty under Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(e)(1) ), (9) Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. , and (10) Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Business Acts and Practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (Id. ¶¶ 73–133.)

Before the Court is Maserati's motion for summary judgment. (Dkts. 14, 19.) For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND

The Maserati Ghibli, model years 2014, 2015, and 2016, are equipped with a "Passive Entry System" [hereinafter "PES"]. (Dkt. 22–1 (Statement of Undisputed Facts [hereinafter "SUF"] ) ¶ 2.)1 The PES allows drivers to unlock the vehicle without having to press the RKE button on the key fob. (Id. ¶ 2.) Among other features, to "minimize the possibility of unintentionally locking a key fob RKE transmitter inside your vehicle," the PES will unlock the Ghibli automatically under certain circumstances. (Dkt. 20–2 Ex. 1 [hereinafter "Ghibli Manual"] at 1-5.) This case arises from the performance of that aspect of the PES.

Plaintiff leased a new 2015 Maserati Ghibli on or about August 8, 2015, for personal use by himself, his wife Mai Hazem, and their small child. (Dkt. 22–3 (Declaration of Mohamed Elsayed [hereinafter "Elsayed Decl."] ) ¶¶ 2, 3.) Shortly thereafter, his wife took their son to run errands one day. (Dkt. 22–4 (Declaration of Mai Hazem [hereinafter "Hazem Decl."] ) ¶ 3.)

Returning to the parking lot where she parked her car and left the ignition in the "OFF" position, Ms. Hazem opened the front passenger door and placed her purse, which included her key fob and cellular phone, on the front passenger seat, and then she closed the front passenger door. (Id. ¶ 3.) She then opened the rear passenger door, placed her son in his car seat, and closed the door. (Id. ¶ 3.) Her three-year-old son reached over and pressed the "lock" button on the rear door trim panel, which locked the car. (Id. ¶ 3.) Without access to her cell phone or key fob, and in a parking structure on a hot day, Ms. Hazem feared for her son's safety. (Id. ¶ 4.) After approximately ten to fifteen minutes of gesturing, her son pressed the "unlock" button on the rear door trim panel, unlocking the car. (Id. ¶ 5.)

Concerned for her son's continued safety in the Ghibli, at some point thereafter Ms. Hazem contacted a Maserati dealership. (Id. ¶ 6.) The dealership's response was that the car acted the way it was supposed to. (Id. ¶ 6.) Unsatisfied, she contacted Maserati itself. (Id. ¶ 7.) The service representative was shocked and told her it should not have happened. (Id. ¶ 7.) When she called a week later, however, Maserati informed her that there was nothing they could do to assist her. (Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff also complained to Ferrari Maserati of Las Vegas in February 2016 when the car was in for service. (SUF ¶ 8.) Ferrari Maserati of Las Vegas noted, "doors working as designed." (Id. ¶ 8).

Plaintiff's claim that the PES should have unlocked the car (and the PES' failure to do so constitutes a defect) is premised on several statements made in (1) the Ghibli eBrochures, (2) the Ghibli's Owner's Manual, (3) the Quick Reference Guide [hereinafter "QRG"], and (4) the vehicle warranty card.2

eBrochures. The 2015 Ghibli eBrochure states that "Maserati made passive safety a top priority when designing the Ghibli. To provide the best possible protection for its occupants and help it achieve its aim of a 5-Star Safety Rating by EURO NCAP and US NCAP, it features the latest generation air bag system and a special front-end crumple structure." (Dkt. 20–2 Ex. 7 at 7-3.) The 2015 eBrochure goes on to tout the seven dual stage air bags, the seat belt pretensioners, and the active headrests. (See id. )

The 2016 eBrochure is substantially identical to the 2015 eBrochure, (see Dkt. 20–2 Ex. 6 at 6-3), but expands on several important features of the vehicle, (seeid. at 6–4–6–6). While PES is not mentioned, the key fob more broadly is included under the subsection "Comfort and Functionality," not the "Safety" subsection. (Compare id. at 6–6 withid. at 6–4–6–5.)

Owner's Manual. The Ghibli Owner's Manual begins with the statement that, "[w]ithin the text, important warnings and notes are easily identifiable through icons." (Ghibli Manual at 1-2.) "Notes" are defined as "[a]dditional information regarding the subject and/or the operation described." (Id. )

The manual has a paragraph titled, "Preventing Inadvertant Locking of the Key Fob RKE Transmitter Inside the Vehicle." (Id. at 1–5.) The paragraph states,

To minimize the possibility of unintentionally locking a key fob RKE transmitter inside your vehicle, the Passive Entry system is equipped with an automatic door unlock feature which will function if the ignition switch is in the OFF position. If one of the vehicle doors is open and the door panel [lock] switch is used to lock the vehicle, once all open doors have been closed the system checks the inside and outside of the vehicle for any valid key fob RKE transmitter. If one of the vehicle's key fobs RKE transmitter is detected inside the vehicle, and no other valid key fobs RKE transmitter are detected outside the vehicle, the Passive Entry system automatically unlocks all vehicle doors ....

(Id. at 1–5 (emphasis in original).) Following the paragraph are two "Notes" which present bulleted lists. The first one states: "The vehicle unlocks the doors under any of the following conditions: [1] the doors are manually locked using the door lock knob positioned on the door panel, [2] there is a valid key fob RKE transmitter inside the vehicle, [3] there is not a valid key fob RKE transmitter outside the vehicle." (Id. at 1–5.) Under the first bullet (referencing the door lock knob on the door panel) is an image of the front, driver's side door trim panel and an arrow pointing toward a button on that panel. (Id. at 1–5.) On the same page, prior to the paragraph in question, there are directions on unlocking the car which note that the "interior door panel lock knob will rise when the door is unlocked." (Id. at 1–5.) The image underneath that text is of the front passenger door, with an arrow indicating that the door panel lock knob is the apparatus that rises from the area where the door panel ends and the door window begins when the car is unlocked. (Id. at 1–5.)

The second "Note" following the lockout paragraph states, "The vehicle will not unlock the doors under any of the following conditions: [1] the doors are locked using the key fob RKE transmitter, [2] the doors are locked using the button on the Passive Entry front door handles, [3] there is a valid key fob RKE transmitter outside the vehicle and within 5ft (1.5m) of either Passive Entry front door handle, [4] three attempts are made to lock the doors using the door panel switch and then close the doors [sic]." (Id. at 1–5–1–6.) The accompanying image following the second bullet indicates that the "Passive Entry front door handles" are the handles on the exterior of the car which people use to open the door from the outside. (Seeid. at 1–6.)

The manual also discusses how the doors of the Ghibli lock. On one page, a paragraph with the heading "Power Doors Locking/Unlocking" states, "A power door lock switch and a power door unlock switch are positioned on the front door trim panel. Use this switches [sic] to lock or unlock the doors." (Dkt. 22–2 Ex. A (Plaintiff's Ghibli Manual Selections) at 3.) Following that statement are images of the insides of the front driver's side door trim panel and the front passenger's side door trim panel. (See id. ) In each, arrows point toward the door trim panel switches. (See id. ) A few pages later, in the section following the PES discussion, the manual reads, "The vehicle doors can also be locked by using the ... lock button located on the vehicle's inner door panel." (Id. at 6.) That statement is followed by two images: (1) an image of the driver's side front door trim panel with an arrow pointing to the power lock switch and (2) a passenger's side trim panel with an arrow pointing to the power lock switch. (Seeid. at 6.)3

Three other important statements are made in the manual. First, the manual repeatedly warns Ghibli operators to "not leave the key fob in or near the vehicle .... A child could...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 7 Marzo 2022
    ...Body Jewelz, Inc. v. Valley Forge Ins. Co. (C.D.Cal. 2017) 241 F.Supp.3d 1084, 1093 ( Body Jewelz ); Elsayed v. Maserati N. Am., Inc. (C.D.Cal. 2016) 215 F. Supp.3d 949, 963 ( Elsayed ); United Guar. Mortg. Indem. Co. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp. (C.D.Cal. 2009) 660 F.Supp.2d 1163, 1180 ; City......
  • In re Jan. 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 26 Enero 2022
    ...Apr. 8, 2019) ; Body Jewelz, Inc. v. Valley Forge Ins. Co. , 241 F. Supp. 3d 1084, 1093 (C.D. Cal. 2017) ; Elsayed v. Maserati N. Am., Inc. , 215 F. Supp. 3d 949, 963 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ; Barrier Specialty Roofing & Coatings, Inc. v. ICI Paints N. Am., Inc. , No. cv-F-07-1614, 2008 WL 1994947......
  • Yetter v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 19-CV-00877-LHK
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 20 Diciembre 2019
    ..."advertising which merely states in general terms that one product is superior is not actionable"); see Elsayed v. Maserati N. Am., Inc. , 215 F. Supp. 3d 949, 960 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (holding that manufacturer's statement about car's "state of the art engineering" was puffery); Oestreicher v.......
  • Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 7 Marzo 2022
    ... ... contract law. (See, e.g., Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc ... v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988-989 ... ( ... 2017) 241 F.Supp.3d 1084, 1093 ( Body ... Jewelz ); Elsayed v. Maserati N. Am., Inc ... (C.D.Cal. 2016) 215 F.Supp.3d 949, 963 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT