Zwerling v. Ford Motor Co.
| Decision Date | 14 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 5:19-cv-03622-EJD |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | PHILIP ZWERLING, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants. |
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Re: Dkt. No. 42
Plaintiff Philip Zwerling asserts claims against Defendants Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) and Does 1-10 for (1) fraud by omission, and (2) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. Dkt. No. 39. Before the Court is Ford's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Not. of Mot. and Mot. to Dismiss Plf.'s First Am. Compl. under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) by Def. Ford Motor Co (“Mot.”), Dkt. No. 42. The Court finds the motion appropriate for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Having considered the parties' written submissions, the Court GRANTS the motion with leave to amend.
Defendant Ford is a manufacturer of motor vehicles organized under the laws of Delaware. First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) ¶ 4. Zwerling is a current California resident and former Texas resident. Id. ¶ 2; Dkt. Nos. 43-1, 43-2, 43-3, 43-4, 43-5 (). On October 26, 2013, Zwerling purchased a new 2013 Ford F-350 Super Duty SRW truck from a Texas Ford dealer for a total cash price of $48, 949.08. FAC ¶ 6; Dkt. Nos. 43-1, 43-2. In connection with the purchase, Zwerling obtained an express New Vehicle Limited Warranty (“the Warranty”). FAC, Ex. A at 5-15. The Warranty provides that Ford “dealers will, without charge, repair, replace, or adjust all parts on Zwerling's truck that malfunction or fail during normal use during the applicable coverage period due to a manufacturing defect in factory-suppled materials or factory workmanship.” Id., Ex. A at 9. The bumper-to-bumper coverage lasts for three years or 36, 000 miles, whichever occurs first. Id., Ex. A at 8. The Warranty further provides an extended coverage period of five years or 60, 000 miles, whichever occurs first, for the powertrain or engine components. Id., Ex. A at 10. The Warranty also provides an extended coverage period of five years or 100, 000 miles, whichever occurs first, for the truck's direct injection diesel engine and certain components. Id., Ex. A at 11-12. The Warranty specifically notes “all questions regarding [its] enforceability and interpretation are governed by the law of the state in which you purchased your Ford vehicle.” Id., Ex. A at 7.
On November 1, 2013-six days after purchase-with 369 miles on the odometer, Zwerling presented the truck to an authorized Ford repair facility because the check engine light came on. Id. ¶ 9; Dkt. No. 43-3. The repair technician found the diesel exhaust fluid (“DEF”) line was damaged and replaced it. FAC ¶ 9; Dkt. No. 43-3.
On January 10, 2014-approximately two and a half months after purchase-with 2, 876 miles on the odometer, Zwerling presented the truck to an authorized Ford repair facility because the check engine light came on. FAC ¶ 10; Dkt. No. 43-4. The repair technician replaced the exhaust gas temperature sensor and pigtail. FAC ¶ 10; Dkt. No. 43-4.
On April 17, 2015, with 8, 428 miles on the odometer, Zwerling presented the truck to an authorized Ford repair facility for general maintenance and to address Recall 14E03 to reprogram the powertrain control module. FAC ¶ 11; Dkt. No. 43-5.
On April 24, 2018, with approximately 26, 085 miles on the odometer, Zwerling presented the truck to an authorized Ford repair facility because the check engine light came on. The repair technician “concluded the issue was related to the exhaust emissions system and fluid was added.”
On October 23, 2018, with approximately 30, 656 miles on the odometer, Zwerling presented the truck to a third-party dealer complaining of a leak under the vehicle. Id. ¶ 13. The repair technician observed a coolant leak and replaced the water pump, charging Zwerling $1, 203.83. Id.
Three days later, on October 26, 2018-exactly five years from the day of purchase- Zwerling had the truck towed to an authorized Ford repair facility in California. Id. ¶ 14. He complained that he had been driving when he heard a noise and the truck lost power. Id. The wrench light came on, and the engine lost power and then died. Id. The repair technician discovered, among other things, that the “exhaust system is completely plugged/restricted.” Id. The technician replaced the diesel particulate filter, the selective catalytic converter, CAC tube, diesel filter assembly, exhaust gas temperature sensor, and gaskets. Id.
Ten days later, on November 5, 2018, Zwerling presented the truck to an authorized Ford repair facility because the check engine light came on. Id. ¶ 15. The repair technician removed and inspected the DEF tank and replaced the reductant sender. Id.
Sometime in January 2019, Zwerling contacted Ford, asserting that the truck was a lemon and requesting that Ford take it back in compliance with lemon law obligations. Id. ¶ 16. Ford did not do so. Id. Zwerling believes that his truck suffers from “one or more defects that can result in, among other problems, loss of power and/or stalling” (“the Engine Defect”). Id. ¶ 20.
On May 6, 2019, Zwerling filed this action in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, asserting violations of California's Song-Beverly Warranty Act (“SBWA”), fraud by omission, and negligent repair against Ford and Keller Ford Lincoln, a Ford dealership and servicer. Dkt. No. 1-2. On June 21, 2019, Ford removed the action to federal court. Dkt. No. 1. On May 18, 2021, Zwerling filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to the parties' stipulation. Dkt. No. 39. The FAC dropped Keller Ford Lincoln and the SBWA claims. See Id. It also added a claim for violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”) through breach of express and implied warranties, for which Zwerling seeks remedies permitted under the SBWA. Id. ¶ 61, Prayer ¶¶ c, h. On August 27, 2021, Ford filed the motion for judgment on the pleadings now before the Court. Dkt. No. 42.
“After the pleadings are closed-but early enough not to delay trial-a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). “Judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, there is no issue of material fact in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). Like a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a motion under Rule 12(c) challenges the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. See Id. Indeed, a Rule 12(c) motion is “functionally identical” to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and courts apply the “same standard.” Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989) ( that the “principal difference” between Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(c) “is the timing of filing”); see also U.S. ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011).
In considering the motion, the Court assumes the complaint's allegations truth and draws all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). Like a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), in addition to considering the allegations of the complaint, the Court may also consider materials subject to judicial notice. Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 981 (9th Cir. 1999). A Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings may thus be granted if, after assessing both the complaint and matters subject to judicial notice, it appears “beyond doubt that the [non-moving party] cannot prove any facts that would support his claim for relief.” R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., LLC v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, Local 150, AFL-CIO, 335 F.3d 643, 647 (7th Cir. 2003). Dismissal under Rule 12(c) is proper if the complaint shows on its face that it is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Hunt v. Cty. of Shasta, 225 Cal.App.3d 432, 440 (1990); see also Yetter v. Ford Motor Company, 428 F.Supp.3d 210, 231 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
Although Rule 12(c) makes no mention of leave to amend, “courts have discretion both to grant a Rule 12(c) motion with leave to amend . . . and to simply grant dismissal of the action instead of entry of judgment.” Mitchell v. Corelogic, Inc., No. SA 17-CV-2274-DOC (DFMx), 2019 WL 7172978, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2019) (); see also Harris v. Cnty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2012) (). Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires, ” bearing in mind “the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decisions on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). When granting judgment on the pleadings, “a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Id. at 1130 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Consumer protection claims that sound in fraud...
To continue reading
Request your trial