Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04257/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04257-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EAST BAY LAW,

Plaintiff,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-04257-TEH 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

This matter came before the Court on February 22, 2016, on Defendant’s motion to 

dismiss. Having carefully considered the parties’ written and oral arguments, the Court 

now GRANTS Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is hereby 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons set forth below. 

BACKGROUND 

On March 13, 2013, Plaintiff East Bay Law (“Plaintiff”) purchased a 2013 Ford 

Taurus SEL vehicle, which came equipped with “Equipment Group 201A.” Vehicle 

Brochure, Ex. A to First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Docket No. 39-1). The window 

sticker delineating the vehicle’s equipment did not reflect inclusion of a voice activated 

navigation system, but did reflect that Plaintiff purchased optional leather seating. 

Window Sticker, Ex. B to FAC (Docket No. 39-2). 

The Vehicle Brochure described Equipment Group 201A as follows: 

Equipment Group 201A – SYNC® with MyFord Touch® 

voice-activated, in-vehicle connectivity system, which includes 

SYNC Services; 2 configurable 4.2” color LCD displays in 

instrument cluster; 8” LCD touch screen in center stack; media 

hub with 2 USB ports; SD card reader and audio/video input 

jacks + additional center channel speaker + Reverse Sensing 

System 

Vehicle Brochure, Ex. A to FAC. The voice-activated navigation system was not included 

in the description of Equipment Group 201A; instead, the navigation system was listed in a 

Case 3:15-cv-04257-TEH Document 52 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

Northern District of California

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

separate section of the brochure, as one of nine “available options.” Id. In the “available 

options” section of the Vehicle Brochure, the voice-activated navigation system at issue in 

this case is described as follows:

Voice-activated Navigation System with SD card for map and 

POI storage, and integrated SiriusXM Traffic and Travel Link 

with 6-month trial subscription (requires 201A or 202A) 

Id. 

Plaintiff alleges that the voice-activated navigation system in its vehicle did not 

operate properly despite the fact that Plaintiff purchased an “SD card” which, according to 

Plaintiff, would enable the voice-activated navigation system to operate. FAC ¶ 6. 

Plaintiff alleges five causes of action: (1) products liability; (2) breach of contract; (3) 

fraud; (4) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; and (5) unfair business practices 

under California’s Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiff seeks “an injunction mandating that 

[Defendant] recall the affected vehicles and repair them at [Defendant’s] cost,” as well as 

statutory fees, costs, and “such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.” FAC at 

12. Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”) moves to dismiss the FAC. 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (“Mot.”) (Docket No. 43).

LEGAL STANDARD 

 Rule 12(b)(6) requires dismissal when a plaintiff’s allegations fail “to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to 

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). 

Plausibility does not equate to probability, but it requires “more than a sheer possibility 

that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(citation omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content 

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Id. In ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court may consider the 

Case 3:15-cv-04257-TEH Document 52 Filed 02/29/16 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

Northern District of California

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

pleadings, along with any exhibits properly attached thereto. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. 

Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1989). 

 For purposes of a motion to dismiss, a court must “accept all material allegations of 

fact as true and construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” 

Vasquez v. Los Angeles County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007). Courts are not, 

however, “bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Furthermore, a court need not accept as true allegations which are 

contradicted by facts that may be considered by the court. See Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court 

for the Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987). 

“[I]f a complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted, leave to amend may be denied . . . if amendment of the complaint would be 

futile.” Albrecht v. Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1988). Dismissal should be with 

leave to amend unless it is clear that amendment could not possibly cure the complaint’s 

deficiencies. Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir. 1998). 

DISCUSSION 

I. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice Is Improper 

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of two different class actions 

against Defendant, as well as Defendant’s response brief in a prior appeal of a related case, 

filed in the Ninth Circuit. Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. 1 to Plaintiff’s Opposition 

(“Opp’n”) (Docket No. 47). “Courts may only take judicial notice of adjudicative facts 

that are not subject to reasonable dispute.” United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908-09 

(9th Cir. 2003); Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Pleadings and briefing are the epitome of disputed 

facts; thus the two class action complaints and the contents of Defendant’s brief to the 

Ninth Circuit are not proper subjects of judicial notice. Furthermore, such purported 

“facts” are not relevant to this motion. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Lynch, 216 F. Supp. 2d 

1016, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (judicially noticed fact must be relevant). For these reasons, 

the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice.

Case 3:15-cv-04257-TEH Document 52 Filed 02/29/16 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

Northern District of California

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. Plaintiff Did Not Purchase the Voice-Activated Navigation Upgrade; 

Therefore, Plaintiff Failed to State a Claim for Relief in any Cause of Action 

In the instant motion, Defendant outlines various reasons why Plaintiff’s FAC fails 

to state a claim on each cause of action asserted. However, the Court need not even reach 

the sufficiency of the pleadings, because one fact is clear that is fatal to all of Plaintiff’s 

claims: Plaintiff never purchased the voice-activated navigation system upgrade. 

Therefore, Plaintiff did not suffer a cognizable injury. 

The Court need not look further than the four corners of FAC and its attached 

exhibits to come to this conclusion. The Vehicle Brochure (Ex. A), the Window Sticker 

(Ex. B), and the receipt for the SD card (Ex. C) unmistakably demonstrate two things: first, 

the voice-activated navigation system was a vehicle upgrade to be purchased separately; 

second, Plaintiff did not purchase the upgrade. 

Plaintiff argues that because it purchased the requisite equipment packet which 

includes an SD card reader, and it purchased a separate SD card, it therefore purchased the 

voice-activated navigation system. Opp’n at 2-3. This argument is groundless. The plain 

language of the Vehicle Brochure states that the voice-activated navigation system is an 

available option, and that the voice-activated navigation system would come equipped with 

an SD card; thus it is not plausible that Plaintiff would need to purchase an additional SD 

card, had it already purchased the option. Furthermore, it is clear that Plaintiff knew how 

to purchase such additional options – it purchased the leather seating option listed in the 

same section of the brochure as the voice-activated navigation system. See Window 

Sticker, Ex. B to FAC. 

The Vehicle Brochure states that the voice-activated navigation system requires 

either Equipment Group 201A or 202A; it does not state that one of the named equipment 

groups is all that is necessary for the upgrade. Plaintiff has not alleged any new facts since 

filing its complaint based on the same allegations over two and a half years ago, and the 

Court sees no reason to depart from its previous reasoning in dismissing the prior action. 

See Related Case, Case No. 13-CV-2822-TEH. 

Case 3:15-cv-04257-TEH Document 52 Filed 02/29/16 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

Northern District of California

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Because Plaintiff has failed to allege that it actually purchased the navigation 

upgrade which it claims it did not receive, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief and 

Plaintiff’s FAC is therefore DISMISSED. Defendant has shown that there are no facts 

alleged that would entitle Plaintiff to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 255 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). 

Moreover, the Window Sticker clearly shows that the upgrade was not purchased, and the 

plain language of the Vehicle Brochure demonstrates that no reasonable consumer would 

have interpreted the Vehicle Brochure as Plaintiff did; therefore, the fatal deficiency of the 

FAC could not possibly be cured by amendment. Steckman, 143 F.3d at 1296. Between 

the prior action and the instant case, Plaintiff has had three chances to cure this deficiency 

in its pleadings, but has failed to do so. For these reasons, the dismissal is WITH 

PREJUDICE. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and 

Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 02/29/16 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04257-TEH Document 52 Filed 02/29/16 Page 5 of 5