McQueen v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., Civil No. 19-2559 (DWF/BRT)

Citation488 F.Supp.3d 848
Decision Date21 September 2020
Docket NumberCivil No. 19-2559 (DWF/BRT)
Parties Zach MCQUEEN and Fred Krautkramer, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION, U.S.A., Defendant.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota

488 F.Supp.3d 848

Zach MCQUEEN and Fred Krautkramer, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION, U.S.A., Defendant.

Civil No. 19-2559 (DWF/BRT)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

Signed September 21, 2020


488 F.Supp.3d 852

David A. Goodwin, Esq., Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq., and Ling S. Wang, Esq., Gustafson Gluek PLLC; Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq., and Joseph B. Kenney, Esq., Sauder Schelkopf, counsel for Plaintiffs.

Theane Evangelis, Esq., and Timothy W. Loose, Esq., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; Bryan R. Freeman, Esq., Thomas R. Pack, Esq., Maslon LLP, counsel for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DONOVAN W. FRANK, United States District Judge

488 F.Supp.3d 853

INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Yamaha Motor Corporation's ("Defendant" or "Yamaha") Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 26.) Plaintiffs Zach McQueen ("McQueen") and Fred Krautkramer ("Krautkramer") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") oppose Defendant's motion.1 (Doc. No. 35 ("Pl. Opp.").) For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

For purposes of this motion, the Court summarizes the factual allegations in the Complaint and the materials referenced and embraced by the Complaint.2

This lawsuit relates to model years 2016-2018 Yamaha Pure Sport YXZ1000R, YXZ1000SE, YXZ1000SS, and YXZ1000SS SE Side-by-Side vehicles, equipped with radiators mounted on the front of the vehicles ("Class Vehicles").3 (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 48.) Plaintiffs allege that the front-mounted radiators on the Class Vehicles are defectively designed and/or manufactured. (Id . ¶ 2.) In particular, the front-mounted radiators frequently become clogged with mud or debris while being operated as intended, resulting in inadequate cooling, overheated engines, and potentially catastrophic engine failure and even fire ("Radiator Defect"). (Id .; see also id . ¶¶ 51-53, 55-56, 68.) Even when the Class Vehicles are used in areas without mud, the radiators are often unable to operate as intended, causing the Class Vehicles’ engines to overheat. (Id . ¶ 53.)

Plaintiffs allege that Yamaha demonstrated its knowledge of the Radiator Defect when Yamaha relocated the radiator to the rear of Yamaha's Pure Sport Side-by-Side vehicles. (Id . ¶ 54.) For the 2019 YXZ 1000R Pure Sport Side-by-Side, Yamaha stated that "for 2019, the YXZ1000R SS uses an all-new cooling system that not only ensures proper cooling during the toughest conditions, but is designed to ensure the cabin remains comfortable and the radiator stays clear of mud and debris ." (Id . ¶ 55 (emphasis in original); see also id . ¶ 56.) Yamaha also issued a press release advertising the advantage of the relocation of the 2019 YXZ's radiator, stating that the relocation of the radiator "eradicat[es] excess cabin heat while simultaneously eliminating the risk of clogging while driving through mud ." (Id . ¶ 57 (emphasis in original).) Yamaha's Owner's Manuals explicitly warn owners of the Class Vehicles not to allow their radiators to become clogged with mud. (Id . ¶ 58.)

Plaintiffs allege, upon information and belief, that Yamaha, through (1) its own records of customers’ complaints, (2) dealership repair records, (3) warranty and post-warranty claims, (4) internal pre-sale durability testing, and (5) other various sources, was well aware of the Radiator Defect but failed to notify customers of the

488 F.Supp.3d 854

nature and extent of the problems. (Id . ¶ 60.) Plaintiffs further allege that Yamaha is experienced in the design and manufacture of motorsports products but failed to adequately research, design, test, and/or manufacture the Class Vehicles with the radiator in an appropriate location before marketing and selling the Class Vehicles. (Id . ¶¶ 61-62.) Plaintiffs allege that, through Yamaha's quality control initiatives, Yamaha knew or should have known that the engines in the Class Vehicles were defective. (Id . ¶ 63.) Plaintiffs allege that buyers of the Class Vehicles were without access to the information concealed by Yamaha and, thus, reasonably relied on Yamaha's representations and warranties regarding the quality, durability, and other material characteristics of the Class Vehicles. (Id . ¶ 66.) Plaintiffs also point to several publicly available complaints and criticisms, posted as early as 2016, that relate to the Radiator Defect. (Id . ¶¶ 68-69.)

On or about October 18, 2019, Plaintiff McQueen purchased a used 2017 YXZ1000R Pure Sport from an authorized Yamaha dealer and repair center. (Id . ¶ 17.) Prior to purchasing the vehicle, McQueen reviewed various online advertising from Yamaha—none of which disclosed the Radiator Defect. (Id .) McQueen's Yamaha has a front-mounted radiator. (Id . ¶ 19.) Upon riding the vehicle, McQueen's radiator frequently becomes clogged with mud or sand, which causes the vehicle to regularly overheat. (Id . ¶¶ 20-21.) McQueen purchased his vehicle for recreational use. (Id . ¶ 22.) McQueen also purchased an extended warranty that covers the vehicle until 2022. (Id . ¶ 23.)

On or about March 23, 2019, Plaintiff Krautkramer purchased a new 2016 YXZ1000R Yamaha Side-by-Side Pure Sport from an authorized Yamaha dealer and repair center. (Id . ¶ 27.) Prior to purchasing the vehicle, Krautkramer reviewed various online advertising from Yamaha—none of which disclosed the Radiator Defect. (Id .) Krautkramer's Yamaha has a front-mounted radiator. (Id . ¶ 28.) Upon riding the vehicle, Krautkramer's radiator began to get clogged with mud, which causes the radiator to regularly overheat. (Id . ¶¶ 29-30.) Krautkramer purchased his vehicle for recreational use. (Id . ¶ 31.) After experiencing frequent overheating, Krautkramer purchased an aftermarket radiator relocation kit from his Yamaha dealer to resolve the Radiator Defect. (Id . ¶ 33.) Krautkramer contacted Defendant to inquire about rebates and compensation for the new radiator and labor that was required for his vehicle, but Krautkramer's communication attempts were ultimately unsuccessful. (Id . ¶ 34.) Krautkramer's vehicle was still within the warranty period when he attempted to contact Defendant. (Id . ¶ 35.)

Plaintiffs allege that Yamaha, despite its longstanding knowledge of the Radiator Defect, failed to disclose that the Class Vehicles are predisposed to the Radiator Defect. (Id . ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs further allege that Yamaha failed to reveal that the existence of the Radiator Defect impairs the intended use of the Class Vehicles and diminishes the intrinsic and resale value of the Class Vehicles. (Id . ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs allege that Yamaha has been unwilling to adequately repair Class Vehicles that suffer from the Radiator Defect. (Id . ¶ 6.)

Plaintiffs allege that had Plaintiffs and other Class Members known about the Radiator Defector at the time of purchase, Plaintiffs and other Class Members would not have purchased the Class Vehicles or would have paid substantially less for the Class Vehicles. (Id . ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered considerable monetary costs associated with attempting to address the Radiator Defect. (Id . ¶ 11.)

488 F.Supp.3d 855

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court assumes all facts in the complaint to be true and construes all reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the complainant. Morton v. Becker , 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1986). In doing so, however, a court need not accept as true wholly conclusory allegations, Hanten v. Sch. Dist. of Riverview Gardens , 183 F.3d 799, 805 (8th Cir. 1999), or legal conclusions drawn by the pleader from the facts alleged, Westcott v. City of Omaha , 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990). A court deciding a motion to dismiss may consider the complaint, matters of public record, orders, materials embraced by the complaint, and exhibits attached to the complaint.4 See Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp. , 186 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999).

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Although a complaint need not contain "detailed factual allegations," it must contain facts with enough specificity "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id . at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. As the Supreme Court reiterated, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements," will not pass muster under Twombly . Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). In sum, this standard "calls for enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [the claim]." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

In addition to the pleading standard explained by the Supreme Court in Twombly and Iqbal , Federal Rule of Civil Procedure...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Cohen v. Subaru of Am., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 10 Marzo 2022
    ...2014)). A duty to disclose may exist where one party “special knowledge of material facts to which the other party does not have access.” Id. (citations and omitted).[34] Plaintiffs allege that Denso “had exclusive knowledge of the Fuel Pump Defect since at least 2016 when, in a patent appl......
  • In re Metformin Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 30 Marzo 2022
  • Gisairo v. Lenovo (U.S.) Inc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • 2 Febrero 2021
    ...§ 336.2-302(2) have considered whether the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged unconscionability. See McQueen v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. , 488 F. Supp. 3d 848, 862–64, (D. Minn. 2020) ; see also Johnson , 175 F. Supp. 3d at 1144.Gisairo's complaint alleges that "[a]ny attempt by Lenovo to......
  • Alsibai v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., File No. 20-cv-0963 (ECT/DTS)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • 23 Septiembre 2020
    ......Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, ......
  • 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