Yetter v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 19-CV-00877-LHK

• Decision Date: 20 December 2019
• Docket Number: Case No. 19-CV-00877-LHK
• Citation: 428 F.Supp.3d 210
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: Wayne W. YETTER, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant.

428 F.Supp.3d 210

Wayne W. YETTER, Plaintiff,

v.FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant.

Case No. 19-CV-00877-LHK

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division.

Signed December 20, 2019

Amy-Lyn Morse, Steve Mikhov, Daniel Max Kalinowski, Maite C. Colon, George Semaan, Knight Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.

Jeff Eric Scott, Breeanna Nicole Brewer, Daniell Kai Newman, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Elizabeth Vanis McNulty, Evans Fears & Schuttert, LLP Newport Beach, CA, Russell MacArthur Mortyn, Spencer Peter Hugret, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS WITH PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 38

LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Wayne Yetter ("Plaintiff") brings suit against Defendant Ford Motor Company ("Defendant") for claims arising from Plaintiff's purchase of a vehicle manufactured by Defendant. Before the Court is Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Having considered the parties' submissions, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings with prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff resides in Salinas, California. ECF No. 37 ¶ 2 ("First Amended Complaint" or "FAC"). Defendant Ford is a vehicle manufacturer incorporated in Delaware. Id. ¶ 3. On June 30, 2008, Plaintiff purchased a new 2008 Ford Super Duty F-350 truck from Salinas Valley Ford, an authorized dealer of Defendant's vehicles. Id. ¶¶ 9, 56. Plaintiff paid $56,673.20 for the vehicle. ECF No. 37-1 at 2.

Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle that Defendant manufactured and that Plaintiff purchased contains a defective engine. FAC ¶¶ 10, 13. Navistar supplied a 6.4 liter engine for Ford's Super Duty trucks for model year 2008 to 2010. Id. ¶ 15. Ford claimed that the 6.4 liter engine "had ‘been tested the equivalent of 10 million miles on road and in the lab, helping ensure excellent long-term durability.’ " Id. Nonetheless, Plaintiff alleges that the 6.4 liter engine ("6.4L Engine") "is plagued by numerous problems and safety concerns." Id. ¶ 17. For example, the engine loses power while in operation and is subject to overheating. Id. ¶ 19. Other defects "result[ ] in premature engine failure and require[ ] expensive repairs, including premature engine replacement." Id. ¶ 20.

Plaintiff alleges that Ford alerted automotive technicians about "several defects common to the 6.4L Engine." Id. ¶ 29. Ford also issued two different recall notices in March 26, 2007 for Super Duty trucks for other defects not related to the engine, including an "excessive temperature defect" and a "wiring defect." Id. ¶ 30. However, Ford has never developed a plan to identify and eliminate "the root cause of defects to the 6.4L Engines," nor has Ford implemented a recall of the engines. Id. ¶ 46. Instead, Ford instructed its dealers to undertake repairs that "misled customers to believe that the underlying problem had been fixed, when in fact the symptom likely would reoccur on a later date." Id. ¶ 47.

Plaintiff read promotional materials and viewed Ford advertisements that represented that the Super Duty F-350 had "best-in-class rated towing power and engine reliability." Id. ¶¶ 53-54. Specifically, at the authorized Ford dealership on the day of Plaintiff's purchase of the vehicle, a salesperson provided Plaintiff with a marketing brochure for the Ford 2008 F-350, which Plaintiff reviewed. Id. ¶ 53. The marketing brochure represented that the 6.4L Engine has "[h]igh-pressure common-rail fuel injection hels [sic] [that] deliver 100% of its 650 lb.-ft of torque (80 lb.-ft. more than 2007) at just 2000 rpm." Id. ¶ 142(a). The brochure also noted that the 6.4L Engine had "cast-iron block, heads, and bedplate;" a "bigger crankshaft;" "powder-forged connecting rods;" and "oil-jet piston cooling." Id. ¶ 142(b)-(e). Plaintiff alleges that "the Vehicle as delivered to Plaintiff had an unreliable, underperforming engine prone to overheating and failure of multiple systems, from the cooling system to the electrical system," but Plaintiff never alleges how any of the representations in the brochure are false. Id. ¶ 143.

Additionally, according to Plaintiff, a salesperson at Salinas Valley Ford "verbally represented to Plaintiff that the Super Duty F-350 was better and improved over prior Ford models, and specifically, that the new 6.4L Engine was a newly designed higher performing and better engine than the previous 6.0 Liter PowerStroke Engine." Id. ¶ 56. "[W]hen asked how the 2008 F-350 would perform in comparison with Plaintiff's prior 1996 Ford truck[,] the salesperson represented that the ‘2008 F-350 is a better truck with better performance; guaranteed’ " and that "the 2008 F-350 had superior gas mileage and performance to previous Ford models." Id.

Plaintiff delivered the vehicle to "an authorized Ford repair facility" for various repairs on multiple occasions, including on January 15, 2009; July 9, 2009; March 4, 2010; December 7, 2010; January 5, 2011; October 3, 2011; April 30, 2012; October 27, 2012; and January 25, 2016. Id. ¶¶ 59-67. On each occasion, the technician at the repair facility informed Plaintiff "that the Vehicle had been repaired and was safe to drive." Id.

At least four of Plaintiff's repairs concerned the engine. On December 7, 2010, Plaintiff's vehicle received "its first engine repair." Id. ¶ 62. Plaintiff complained "that the check engine and wrench light were o[n] and that the vehicle lacked power." Id. Again, on October 3, 2011, for the vehicle's "second repair to the engine," "Plaintiff complained that the check engine light was on" and "that the engine had an exhaust leak." Id. ¶ 64. On April 30, 2012, for the vehicle's "third engine repair," "Plaintiff complained that the ‘drive to clean exhause [sic]’ message would come on after driving for 20 miles." Id. ¶ 65. On October 27, 2012, for the vehicle's "fourth engine repair," "Plaintiff complained that the vehicle displayed the message ‘reduced engine power.’ " Id. ¶ 66. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff concedes that "[t]he earliest date that a person in Plaintiff's position could have reasonably had notice of his claims would be April 30, 2012." Id. ¶ 79.

While Plaintiff still owned the vehicle, a class action was filed on May 14, 2013 against Defendant in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Darne v. Ford Motor Co. , Case No. 13-cv-03594, 2013 WL 2296039 (N.D. Ill. May 14, 2013) ; see ECF No. 39, Ex. C ("RJN").¹ The putative nationwide class was initially defined as "[a]ll persons in the United States who purchased or leased Ford trucks with the 6.4-liter Super Duty diesel engine." ECF No. 39, Ex. C at 7. The putative class brought claims for (1) breach of express warranty; (2) breach of implied warranty; (3) breach of state consumer fraud statutes; (4) violations of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (5) negligence; (6) fraud; (7) unjust enrichment; and (8) exemplary damages. Id. at 11-21. Both parties acknowledge that Plaintiff was a putative member of the Darne class. On September 1, 2017, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case with prejudice. Darne v. Ford Motor Co. , 2017 WL 3836586, at *13 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 1, 2017).

B. Procedural History

On January 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant in California Superior Court for the County of Monterey. ECF No. 1-3 ("Compl."). Plaintiff's complaint alleged five causes of action: (1) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("Song-Beverly Act"), id. ¶¶ 83-97; (2) breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act, id. ¶¶ 98-108; (3) fraudulent concealment, id. ¶¶ 109-119; (4) fraudulent inducement – intentional misrepresentation, id. ¶¶ 120-129; and (5) fraudulent inducement – negligent misrepresentation, id. ¶¶ 130-145. Plaintiff also alleged that "all statute of limitations periods are tolled by the discovery rule and the doctrine of fraudulent concealment." Id. ¶ 69.

On January 31, 2019, in state court, Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiff's complaint. ECF No. 1-3, Ex. B. On February 19, 2019, Defendant removed the case to federal court. ECF No. 1.

After removal, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on March 14, 2019. ECF No. 12. On July 19, 2019, the Court granted Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend. ECF No. 34. The Court determined that the Song-Beverly Act express and implied warranty claims were both subject to a four-year statute of limitations. Id. at 6. The remaining common law claims for fraud were all subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Id. at 6. Therefore, "because Plaintiff purchased his vehicle on June 30, 2008, the statute of limitations on Plaintiff's claims appear to have expired on June 30, 2011 (for Plaintiff's fraud claims) and on June 30, 2012 (for Plaintiff's Song-Beverly Act claims)—several years before Plaintiff filed his lawsuit on January 17, 2019." Id.

In response, Plaintiff argued that the claims did not accrue until January 2016, when Plaintiff became aware of an engine defect after visiting a Ford repair facility. The Court concluded otherwise. First, the Court determined that even if the future performance exception applied to Plaintiff's Song-Beverly Act express warranty claim, that claim would only be tolled for five years, the duration of Plaintiff's express warranty. Id. at 7-8. As a result, the four-year statute of limitations under the Song-Beverly Act began to run on June 30, 2013 and expired on June 30, 2017, more than a year and a half before Plaintiff filed his complaint. Id. at 8.

Next, the Court held that neither the delayed discovery rule nor fraudulent concealment tolling applied to any of Plaintiff's claims because "to merit application of the discovery rule or fraudulent...