Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02000/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02000-4/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 

Case No. 1:11-cv-02000-CJC Date: January 12, 2012 

Title: FRESNO MOTORS, LLC, ET AL. V. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC

PRESENT: 

HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 Michelle Urie N/A 

 Deputy Clerk Court Reporter 

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT: 

None Present None Present 

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER CONVERTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [filed 

11/18/11] 

On September 8, 2011, Plaintiffs Fresno Motors, LLC and Selma Motors, Inc. 

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought suit against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“MB”), 

arising out of MB’s exercise of a purportedly untimely right of first refusal that prevented 

Plaintiffs from purchasing the assets of the Mercedes-Benz franchise from Asbury Fresno 

Imports, LLC (“Asbury”). (Dkt. No. 1.) On November 4, 2011, Plaintiffs filed the 

operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for damages and restitution, asserting five 

causes of action for (1) intentional interference with existing contractual advantage, (2) 

intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (3) unfair and deceptive 

business acts and practices, in violation of California Business & Professions Code 

section 17200, (4) violation of California Vehicle Code section 17133.3(t), and (5) 

fraudulent concealment. (Dkt. 23.) MB now moves to dismiss the FAC pursuant to 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 29.) 

Here, most of the essential facts of the case are undisputed, and the success of 

Plaintiffs’ claims hinge on determination of legal issues. Where additional evidence is 

needed, they are already in the parties’ custody or control and may be submitted without 

further discovery. Court therefore converts Defendants’ motion to dismiss to a motion 

for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(d) and 56. 

Case 1:11-cv-02000-CJC Document 52 Filed 01/12/12 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 

Case No. 1:11-cv-02000-CJC Date: January 12, 2012 

 Page 2 

MB is hereby ORDERED to submit a supplemental response no later than 

February 3, 2012. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to submit a supplemental opposition no 

later than February 10, 2012. Defendants may submit a supplemental reply no later than 

February 17, 2012. In their responses, the Court requests the parties to include briefing 

and additional evidence related to whether Plaintiffs can prove fraudulent concealment, 

particularly with regard to the following issues: 

(1) whether MB had a duty to disclose the contents of the “Acknowledgement and 

Agreement with respect to Exercise of Right of First Refusal” (the 

“Acknowledgment Agreement”) that MB executed with Asbury on June 19, 2009, 

which contained the provision that “MB expressly agrees that it shall be primarily 

responsible for the performance under the Fresno Motors APA and the Sublease”; 

and 

(2) whether “but for” MB’s failure to disclose the Acknowledgement Agreement 

to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs would not have engaged in negotiations with the landlord 

of the Mercedes-Benz Fresno Dealership premises regarding the terms of 

assumption of Asbury’s lease or a potential new lease with an option to purchase 

the entire premises. 

The Court sets the hearing for MB’s converted summary judgment motion for Friday,

February 24, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. 

jwp 

MINUTES FORM 11 

CIVIL-GEN Initials of Deputy Clerk MU

Case 1:11-cv-02000-CJC Document 52 Filed 01/12/12 Page 2 of 2