Ponzio v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Civil Action No. 18-12544
| Court | United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey |
| Writing for the Court | Joseph H. Rodriguez, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE |
| Citation | 447 F.Supp.3d 194 |
| Parties | Robert PONZIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, and Daimler AG, Defendants. |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 18-12544 |
| Decision Date | 11 March 2020 |
447 F.Supp.3d 194
Robert PONZIO, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, and Daimler AG, Defendants.
Civil Action No. 18-12544
United States District Court, D. New Jersey.
Signed March 11, 2020
Caroline F. Bartlett, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Roseland, NJ, for Plaintiffs.
Joseph H. Blum, Thomas J. Sullivan, John Michael Lyons, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.
Joseph H. Rodriguez, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint by Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC ("MBUSA") [Dkt. No. 22], and Defendant Daimler AG ("Daimler") [Dkt. No. 37] (collectively "Defendants"), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). The Court has considered the parties' written submissions and the arguments advanced orally at the hearing held on September 17, 2019. For the reasons stated below, as well as those stated on the record that day, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motions to Dismiss [Dkt. Nos. 22, 37].
Table of Contents
I. Background...209
II. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction...213
A. Standard of Review under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(2)...213
B. Personal Jurisdiction Analysis...213
1. General Jurisdiction...214
2. Specific Jurisdiction...215
III. Motion to Transfer the Case to the Northern District of Georgia...218
A. Transfer Standard...218
B. Transfer Analysis...218
1. Private Factors...219
a. Plaintiffs' Choice of Forum & Where the Claim Arose...219
b. Defendants' Choice of Forum & Convenience of the Parties...219
c. Ease of Access to Sources of Proof & Convenience of the Witnesses...220
2. Public Interest Factors...220
3. Related Litigation...220
IV. Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims for Lack of Standing...221
A. Standing under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(1)...221
B. Standing Analysis...221
V. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim...224
A. Failure to State a Claim under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6)...224
B. Plaintiffs' Fraud Based Claims...225
1. Rule (9)(b) Pleading...225
2. Group Pleading...226
3. Count I: Fraudulent Concealment...226
a. Knowledge...227
b. The Kansas, Florida, North Carolina, and New Jersey Plaintiffs' Fraudulent Concealment Claims: Special Relationship...––––
i. North Carolina & Kansas...232
ii. Florida...233
iii. New Jersey...234
c. Economic Loss Doctrine: California, Florida, and Kansas...236
4. Plaintiffs' State-Specific Consumer Protection Act Claims...238
a. North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA")...240
b. The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act...242
c. California Unfair Competition Law And False Advertising Law...245
i. Plaintiffs' California Unfair Competition Law Claim (California Count I)...245
1. Unlawful Business Act or Practice...245
2. Unfair Business Practice...245
3. Fraudulent Practices or Acts...246
ii. False Advertising Law Claims (California Count II)...247
d. Claims under Florida, New York, and California...248
i. False Advertising Law Claims (California Count II)...249
ii. Florida Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA")...250
iii. The New York General Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349 and 350...252
C. Plaintiffs' Remaining Claims...253
1. Plaintiffs Breach of Express Warranty Claims Fail to State a Claim for Plausible Relief...253
2. Plaintiffs' Breach of Implied Warranty Claims...258
3. Plaintiffs' Unjust Enrichment Claims (COUNT II)...258
VI. Conclusion...261
I. Background
This is a putative class action concerning a number of Mercedes-Benz branded vehicles that have "Mars Red" paint ("Class Vehicle(s)"). Plaintiffs Robert Ponzio, Karina Kloczko, Jessica Irene Miller, Thomas Hayes,1 Alex Acuna, Brian Madsen, Vanessa M. Montgomery, Robert Mull, Hadiya Nelthrope, and Samuel Salgado ("Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and all other potential members of the Nationwide Class and State Classes they seek to represent, filed a Complaint with this Court on August 8, 2018 alleging that the Mars Red paint is defective. [Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl.") ]. Specifically, the 360 page complaint claims that Mercedes' Mars Red paint contains a defect that causes the Vehicles' exterior clearcoat to bubble, peel, and flake off, ultimately leading to rusting and corrosion" ("Paint Defect"). (Id. at ¶ 1).
Plaintiffs define Mars Red as "an automotive paint color manufactured by PPG Industries, Inc. ("PPG"), formerly known as Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company. The color formulation, which is also commonly known as Fire Opal, has been used by Mercedes between 2004 and 2017." (Id. ¶ 1 n.1). Plaintiffs bring this current action against Daimler and its wholly owned subsidiary, MBUSA. According to the Complaint, "Daimler manufactures and sells automobiles through independent retail dealers, outlets, and authorized dealerships primarily in North America, Europe, and Asia," and designs Class Vehicles, including the paint used on them. (Id. at ¶ 72-74). "MBUSA (itself and through its related entities) engaged in the business of marketing, warranting, distributing, selling, leasing, and servicing automobiles, including the Class Vehicles, throughout the United States." (Id. at ¶ 71).
Plaintiffs' Class Vehicles were subject to Mercedes' New Vehicle Limited Warranty ("NVLW"), which warrants to "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." (Id. at ¶ 159). The warranty period is "48 months or 50,000 miles, whichever occurs first." (Id. ).
The nine (9) named Plaintiffs in this case, each allege that they purchased a Class Vehicle—a Mercedes-Benz with Mars Red Paint—which, at some point, maintained a bubbling/peeling clearcoat.
The named Plaintiff, Mr. Ponzio is the sole Plaintiff who is a citizen of New Jersey and the sole plaintiff to have purchased his Class Vehicle in New Jersey. Mr. Ponzio "specifically wanted to purchase a vehicle in a red color," and alleges that he was aware that other red Mercedes vehicles' color faded overtime. At a Mercedes-Benz Dealer, he discussed his concerns with the sales representative, who "stated that there had previously been a problem with the Mars Red paint, but that it had since been fixed, and, therefore, there would not be any problems with the Mars Red paint on the Class Vehicle." According to Mr. Ponzio, he relied on this information when he purchased a new 2013 Mars Red SL 550 on June 10, 2013. (Id. ¶¶ 15-19).
Between six months and one year prior to initiating this lawsuit, Ponzio began to notice "that the clearcoat on the hood of his Class Vehicle was peeling, and observed the peeling spread to other parts of his vehicle." As a result, in or about May 2018, Plaintiff Ponzio brought his Class Vehicle to Mercedes-Benz of Cherry Hill. There, personnel assessed the paint on Mr. Ponzio's car "(by taking measurements and using a paint meter) and advised that the entire Vehicle would have to be repainted." At that time, Mr. Ponzio's class vehicle was outside of his warranty. "[D]ealership personnel said that they would have to reach out to Mercedes-Benz's corporate office to explore his options;" he has not heard from them regarding his repainting. But Mr. Ponzio alleges that he was told that "many Mars Red vehicles had come into the dealership with the same problem." (Id. ).
Ms. Kloczko resides in Florida, where she purchased a new 2014 Mars Red C350 on May 14, 2014 at an authorized Mercedes dealer in Florida. "Plaintiff specifically wanted to purchase a vehicle in a red color, and the availability of the C350 in Mars Red was a material factor in her decision to purchase her Class Vehicle." Around June 2017, Ms. Kloczko noticed bubbling, peeling, and/or flaking of her vehicle's clear coat. She subsequently brought her Class Vehicle to a Mercedes-Benz of West Palm Beach where she was ultimately told that her Class Vehicle contained a Paint Defect. Due to the number of Class Vehicles that required re-painting, however, there was a six month wait for repair. A second Mercedes-Benz, of Pembroke Pines, sent Plaintiff Kloczko's Class Vehicle to an AutoNation Collision Center. They repainted the Class Vehicle for over $10,000.00, which was paid for by Plaintiff's insurance company. During the repainting, that took approximately one month, Plaintiff Kloczko "was still required to make her monthly payment and was not given a comparable loaner vehicle." In August 2017, CarMac appraised Kloczko's Class Vehicle. It "significantly reduced the value" and noted it had paintwork and/or "Needs Paintwork." Autotrader.com categorized the repainting as a Serious Condition and offered Mr. Kloczko a reduced "Kelley Blue Book Instant Cash Offer." (Id. at ¶¶ 20-24).
Plaintiff Irene Miller is also a Florida resident. She purchased a used 2014 Class Vehicle around March 28, 2017, at Southeast Car Agency in Gainesville, Florida, and in or about February 2018 noticed that the clearcoat was peeling. One month after she noticed the paint peeling, she brought her Class Vehicle to the dealership....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powell v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 1:19-cv-19114
...not the first one in the District of New Jersey to raise this issue. In a recently published opinion, Ponzio v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 447 F.Supp.3d 194, 241–42 (D.N.J. 2020), a judge of this court was faced with this very question. The court there noted that "whether the economic loss rul......
-
Butler Auto Recycling, Inc. v. Honda Motor Co. (In re Takata Airbag Prods. Liab. Litig.), MDL No. 2599
...other similar relationship which imposes upon the defendant a ‘duty to speak’ to the plaintiff."); Ponzio v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC , 447 F. Supp. 3d 194, 232 (D.N.J. 2020) (dismissing North Carolina fraudulent concealment claim absent a contractual or other special relationship, even thoug......
-
Cohen v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 1:20-cv-08442-JHR-AMD
...limits the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts to 9 ‘cases' and ‘controversies.'” Ponzio v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 447 F.Supp.3d 194, 221 (D.N.J. 2020) (quoting U.S. Art. III § 2). Plaintiffs may establish that their case presents a controversy and, therefore, that they have stan......
-
In re Subaru Battery Drain Prods. Liab. Litig., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-03095-JHR-JS
...that each entity played in the fraudulent concealment in order to meet the Rule 9(b) standard." Ponzio v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 447 F. Supp. 3d 194, 226 (D.N.J. 2020) (quoting Gray v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 2014 WL 4723161, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 23, 2014)). Defendants next argue—and Plaintiffs......
-
Powell v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 1:19-cv-19114
...not the first one in the District of New Jersey to raise this issue. In a recently published opinion, Ponzio v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 447 F.Supp.3d 194, 241–42 (D.N.J. 2020), a judge of this court was faced with this very question. The court there noted that "whether the economic loss rul......
-
Butler Auto Recycling, Inc. v. Honda Motor Co. (In re Takata Airbag Prods. Liab. Litig.), MDL No. 2599
...other similar relationship which imposes upon the defendant a ‘duty to speak’ to the plaintiff."); Ponzio v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC , 447 F. Supp. 3d 194, 232 (D.N.J. 2020) (dismissing North Carolina fraudulent concealment claim absent a contractual or other special relationship, even thoug......
-
Cohen v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 1:20-cv-08442-JHR-AMD
...limits the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts to 9 ‘cases' and ‘controversies.'” Ponzio v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 447 F.Supp.3d 194, 221 (D.N.J. 2020) (quoting U.S. Art. III § 2). Plaintiffs may establish that their case presents a controversy and, therefore, that they have stan......
-
In re Subaru Battery Drain Prods. Liab. Litig., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-03095-JHR-JS
...that each entity played in the fraudulent concealment in order to meet the Rule 9(b) standard." Ponzio v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 447 F. Supp. 3d 194, 226 (D.N.J. 2020) (quoting Gray v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 2014 WL 4723161, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 23, 2014)). Defendants next argue—and Plaintiffs......