Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02087/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02087-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IRIS GONZALEZ, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02087-MMC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, 

DENYING IN PART, AND DEFERRING 

RULING IN PART ON DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION TO DISMISS; SETTING 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE

Before the Court is defendants Mazda Motor Corporation and Mazda Motor of 

America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Mazda”) motion, filed September 23, 2016, by which Mazda 

seeks, under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an order dismissing 

certain of the claims alleged in the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs Megan Humphrey 

and Matthew Ochmanek (collectively, “California Plaintiffs”) and plaintiffs Iris Gonzalez, 

Charles Bunch, Anne Stom, David Woodward, Greg Thomason, Lisa Massa, Dan 

Carney, Lorie Bender, Andrew Bauer, Linda Foley, Lou Graziani (collectively, “NonCalifornia Plaintiffs”)1

have filed opposition, to which Mazda has replied. The matter 

came on regularly for hearing on December 2, 2016. Bryan L. Clobes and Daniel 

Oswaldo Herrera of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether Sprengel LLP appeared on behalf of 

plaintiffs. Michael Lawrence Mallow of Sidley Austin LLP appeared on behalf of Mazda. 

The Court, having considered the parties’ respective written submissions and the 

arguments of counsel at the hearing, rules as follows.

//

 

1

The Court hereinafter refers to each plaintiff individually by his or her surname.

Case 3:16-cv-02087-MMC Document 38 Filed 01/05/17 Page 1 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

A. First Cause of Action (California Consumer Legal Remedies Act)

2

Mazda moves to dismiss the claims of the Non-California Plaintiffs3on the ground 

such claims “should be governed by the consumer protection laws of the jurisdiction[s] in 

which the transaction[s] took place.” (See Mot. at 4:25-5:5 (quoting Mazza v. Am. Honda 

Co., 666 F.3d 581, 594 (9th Cir. 2012))). In response, plaintiffs contend the resolution of 

such issue at this time would be premature. The Court, for the reasons stated on the

record at the hearing, finds “this is not a case in which further development of the factual 

record is reasonably likely to materially impact the choice of law determination,” see Cover 

v. Windsor Surry Co., No. 14-CV-05262-WHO, 2016 WL 520991, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 

2016), and, consequently, finds it appropriate to make such determination at this stage of 

the proceedings.4The sole remaining issue is the whether there are “material differences”

between California law and the laws of the states in which the transactions took place. 

See Mazza, 666 F.3d at 590. Although plaintiffs confined their opposition to the first of the 

above-referenced two issues, prematurity, given the significance of the second, material 

differences, the Court will afford plaintiffs the opportunity to file supplemental briefing, and 

hereby DEFERS ruling thereon until such briefing is complete.

5

 

 

2

The First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fourteenth Causes of Action are brought 

on behalf of all plaintiffs. The remaining causes of action are brought on behalf of certain 

of the plaintiffs as indicated below.

3 Mazda has withdrawn its motion to the extent the First Cause of Action is brought 

on behalf of Ochmanek, one of the California Plaintiffs (see Reply at 6:20 n.7), and, 

accordingly, the Court does not address such claim herein. 

4

To the extent Mazda moves to dismiss the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, 

Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Causes of Action on the ground that the allegations 

of fraud set forth therein are not pleaded with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the motion, for the reasons stated on the record at the 

hearing, is hereby DENIED.

5 Although Mazda argues such additional briefing is unnecessary, pointing out that 

the Ninth Circuit in Mazza reviewed an appendix purporting to reflect the differences 

between the consumer protection laws of California and 43 other states, see Mazza, 666 

F.3d at 591, said appendix was submitted by the defendant therein to the district court, 

see Def.’s State Law Variations Appendix in Support of Opp. to Pl.’s Renewed Mot. for 

Class Cert., Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 254 F.R.D. 610 (C.D. Cal. 2008), and there 

is no indication its accuracy was challenged.

Case 3:16-cv-02087-MMC Document 38 Filed 01/05/17 Page 2 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

B. Second Cause of Action (California Unfair Competition Law)

Mazda moves to dismiss the claims of the Non-California Plaintiffs on the same 

ground as set forth above with regard to the First Cause of Action. The Court, contrary to 

plaintiffs’ argument, finds a determination thereon is not premature at this stage of the 

proceedings and hereby DEFERS ruling pending supplemental briefing on the remaining 

issue.

C. Third Cause of Action (California Song-Beverly Act)

Mazda moves to dismiss the claims of the Non-California Plaintiffs on the ground 

the Song-Beverly Act does not apply extraterritorially, and plaintiffs agree to dismiss 

those claims. (See Opp. at 2:10 n.2). Accordingly, as to the Non-California Plaintiffs, the 

motion is hereby GRANTED without leave to amend. 

Mazda moves to dismiss plaintiff Ochmanek’s claim on the ground such claim fails 

in light of the one-year durational period of the Song-Beverly Act. See Cal. Civ. Code 

§ 1791.1(c). The Court is not persuaded. See Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc., 174 Cal. 

App. 4th 1297, 1310 (2009) (noting “[t]here is nothing [in the statute] that suggests a 

requirement that the purchaser discover and report to the seller a latent defect within [the 

one-year] time period”); id. at 1305 (holding “[i]n the case of a latent defect, a product is 

rendered unmerchantable, and the warranty of merchantability is breached, by the 

existence of the unseen defect”); see also Daniel v. Ford Motor Co., 806 F.3d 1217, 1223

(9th Cir. 2015) (holding ruling in Mexia must be followed, “[a]bsent convincing evidence 

that the California Supreme Court would decide the issue . . . differently”). 

Although, as Mazda points out, the district court’s reasoning in Peterson v. Mazda 

Motor of Am., Inc., 44 F. Supp. 3d 965 (C.D. Cal. 2014) has some persuasive force, see

id. at 971-72 (holding plaintiff “need not allege that she discovered the . . . defect within 

[the one-year durational period], but there should at least be allegations that symptoms of 

the defect manifested during the warranty period”; observing, “if Mexia were not limited, 

Mexia would render the duration provision of the Song-Beverly Act meaningless because 

every defect that arises could conceivably be tied to an imperfection existing during the 

Case 3:16-cv-02087-MMC Document 38 Filed 01/05/17 Page 3 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

implied warranty period”) (internal quotation, citation, and alteration omitted), the Court 

notes that Peterson was decided prior to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Daniel, which, on 

facts similar to those presented here, adds no such limitation. See Daniel, 806 F.3d at 

1221-23 (applying holding in Mexia to claims based on alignment defect resulting in

premature tire wear outside one-year period). 

Accordingly, as to plaintiff Ochmanek, the motion, for the reasons stated above 

and on the record at the hearing, is hereby DENIED. 

D. Fourth Cause of Action (California Secret Warranty Law)

Mazda moves to dismiss the claims of the Non-California Plaintiffs on the ground 

the California Secret Warranty Law does not apply extraterritorially, and plaintiffs agree to 

dismiss those claims. (See Opp. at 2:10 n.2). Accordingly, as to the Non-California 

Plaintiffs, the motion is hereby GRANTED without leave to amend. 

To the extent Mazda moves to dismiss the claims of the California Plaintiffs, the 

motion, for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, is hereby GRANTED with 

leave to amend to allege facts sufficient to plead an adjustment program.

E. Sixth Cause of Action (Florida Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices Act)

The Sixth Cause of Action is brought solely on behalf of plaintiff Woodward. 

Mazda moves to dismiss Woodward’s claim on the ground it lacks the requisite facts 

pertaining to the circumstances under which the vehicle was purchased. The motion is,

for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, hereby GRANTED with leave to 

amend to plead such additional factual support.

F. Ninth Cause of Action (Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and 

Consumer Protection Law)

The Ninth Cause of Action is brought solely on behalf of plaintiffs Massa and 

Bauer. Mazda’s motion to dismiss such claims on the ground they are barred by the 

economic loss doctrine, is, for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, hereby 

DENIED. See Knight v. Springfield Hyundai, 81 A.3d 940, 952 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013)

(holding “[t]he economic loss doctrine is inapplicable” to “statutory claims brought 

Case 3:16-cv-02087-MMC Document 38 Filed 01/05/17 Page 4 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

pursuant to the [Pennsylvania] UTPCPL”).

G. Tenth Cause of Action (Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act)

The Tenth Cause of Action is brought solely on behalf of plaintiff Carney. Mazda 

moves to dismiss Carney’s claim on the ground the allegations in support thereof are not 

sufficient to plead an adjustment program. The motion is, for the reasons stated on the 

record at the hearing, hereby GRANTED with leave to amend to plead additional facts in 

support thereof.

H. Twelfth Cause of Action (Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act)

The Twelfth Cause of Action is brought solely on behalf of plaintiff Graziani. 

Mazda moves to dismiss Graziani’s claim on the ground it is time-barred, and plaintiffs 

agree to dismiss the claim. (See Opp. at 2:10 n.2). Accordingly, Mazda’s motion to 

dismiss said claim is hereby GRANTED without leave to amend. 

I. Thirteenth Cause of Action (Breach of Express Warranty)

The Thirteenth Cause of Action is brought solely on behalf of plaintiffs Gonzalez, 

Bunch, Woodward, Thomason, Massa, Humphrey, Ochmanek, Bauer and Foley. Mazda 

moves to dismiss the claim of plaintiff Woodward on the ground such claim fails to plead 

facts triggering coverage under the warranty, and moves to dismiss the claim of plaintiff 

Bunch on the ground such claim is time-barred absent facts supporting application of the 

future performance exception. The motion is, for the reasons stated on the record at the 

hearing, hereby GRANTED with leave to amend to plead the requisite facts.

J. Fourteenth Cause of Action (Breach of Implied Warranty)

Mazda moves to dismiss the claims of plaintiffs Thomason, Carney, Stom, Foley, 

Graziani, Bauer, Bender, Bunch, and Ochmanek on the grounds such claims are timebarred and/or fail for lack of privity, and plaintiffs agree to dismiss those claims. (See

Opp. at 2:10 n.2). Accordingly, as to the above-referenced plaintiffs, the motion is hereby 

GRANTED without leave to amend.

Mazda moves to dismiss the claim of plaintiff Humphrey on the ground such claim 

fails under the California Commercial Code for lack of privity and, in response to plaintiffs’ 

Case 3:16-cv-02087-MMC Document 38 Filed 01/05/17 Page 5 of 7
6

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

argument that the claim falls within an exception for third-party beneficiaries, cites to 

Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008). See id. at 1023-24 

(holding “California courts have painstakingly established the scope of the privity 

requirement under [the] California Commercial Code . . . , and a federal district court 

sitting in diversity is not free to create new exceptions to it”). The Court acknowledges 

district courts have disagreed as to whether California recognizes a third-party 

beneficiary exception to the privity requirement. Compare, e.g., In re MyFord Touch 

Consumer Litigation, 46 F.Supp.3d 936, 984 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (holding “the third-party 

beneficiary exception remains viable under California law”), with Xavier v. Philip Morris 

USA Inc., 787 F.Supp.2d 1075, 1083 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (holding “[n]o reported California 

decision has held that the purchaser of a consumer product may dodge the privity rule by 

asserting that he or she is a third-party beneficiary of the distribution agreements linking 

the manufacturer to the retailer who ultimately made the sale”), and Long v. Graco 

Children’s Products Inc., No. 13-cv-01257-WHO, 2013 WL 4655763, at *12 (N.D. Cal. 

Aug. 26, 2013) (holding “district court cases that allegedly allowed a third-party 

beneficiary exception . . . are not binding on the Court whereas Clemens is”). Having 

reviewed the relevant available authority, the Court is persuaded by the reasoning of 

those cases that have declined to extend the list of exceptions to encompass asserted 

third-party beneficiaries. Accordingly, as to Humphrey’s claim, Mazda’s motion is hereby 

GRANTED without leave to amend. 

To the extent Mazda moves to dismiss the claim of plaintiff Woodward, the motion 

is, for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, hereby GRANTED with leave to 

amend to add facts bearing on the question of privity. 

K. Fifteenth Cause of Action (Breach of Written Warranty under the 

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act)

The Fifteenth Cause of Action is brought solely on behalf of plaintiffs Gonzalez, 

Bunch, Woodward, Thomason, Massa, Humphrey, Ochmanek, Bauer and Foley, and the 

parties are in agreement that the viability of such claims is dependent on the merits of 

Case 3:16-cv-02087-MMC Document 38 Filed 01/05/17 Page 6 of 7
7

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

plaintiffs’ express warranty claims. Accordingly, to the extent Mazda moves to dismiss 

the claims of plaintiffs Woodward and Bunch, the motion is, for the reasons stated above 

with respect to the Thirteenth Cause of Action, hereby GRANTED with leave to amend. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, 

1. Mazda’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part 

as set forth above.

2. With respect to the claims as to which the Court has deferred ruling, 

specifically, the First and Second Causes of Action brought by the Non-California 

Plaintiffs, the Court sets the following briefing schedule:

a. No later than January 20, 2017, plaintiffs shall file a supplemental 

opposition brief, not to exceed 10 pages in length. 

b. No later than January 27, 2017, Mazda shall file a supplemental reply 

brief, not to exceed 7 pages in length. 

c. As of January 27, 2017, said matters will stand submitted.

3. To the extent leave to amend is granted as set forth above, any Second 

Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than two weeks from the date the Court issues 

an order on the deferred part of Mazda’s motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2017

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02087-MMC Document 38 Filed 01/05/17 Page 7 of 7