Melissa Meza v. FCA US LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: October 24, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-04011
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-04011-RSWL-KS Document 27 Filed 10/24/22 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:185 'O' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CV 22-04011-RSWL-KSx 12 MELISSA MEZA and LETICIA MEZA, ORDER re: MOTION FOR 13 PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE Plaintiffs, 14 PLEADINGS [20] v. 15 16 FCA US LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Plaintiffs Melissa Meza and Leticia Meza 21 (“Plaintiffs”) brought the instant Action against 22 Defendant FCA US, LLC (“Defendant”) alleging Violations 23 of California Civil Code subsections 1793.2 (A)(3), (B), 24 and (D), Breach of the Implied Warranty of 25 Merchantability, Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty 26 Act and Fraudulent Inducement-Concealment. Currently 27 before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Partial 28 Judgment on the Pleadings regarding Plaintiff’s 1 Case 2:22-cv-04011-RSWL-KS Document 27 Filed 10/24/22 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:186

1 fraudulent inducement-concealment claim [20].

2 Having reviewed all papers submitted pertaining to

3 this Motion, the Court NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS: 4 the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Partial Judgment 5 on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff’s fraudulent 6 inducement-concealment claim. 7 I. BACKGROUND 8 A. Factual Background 9 On or about February 6, 2018, Plaintiffs entered 10 into a warranty contract (“Warranty Contract”) with 11 Defendant regarding a 2018 Jeep Cherokee vehicle 12 (“Vehicle”) that Defendant manufactured and/or 13 distributed. Compl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 1. The Warranty 14 Contract included various warranties, including bumper- 15 bumper warranty, powertrain warranty, and emission 16 warranty. Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiffs allege that defects and 17 nonconformities manifested during the warranty period 18 and substantially impaired the use, value, or safety of 19 the Vehicle. Id. ¶¶ 15-16. 20 Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the Vehicle’s 21 9HP transmission (“Transmission”) and Powertrain Control 22 Module (“PCM”) contained defects that “may result in 23 stalling, shutting off, and/or loss of power.” Id. 24 Plaintiffs allege that Defendant had knowledge of the 25 2017-2020 Jeep Cherokee vehicles’ defects and concealed 26 and failed to disclose the defects to its sales 27 representatives and Plaintiffs. Id. ¶¶ 18, 22. If 28 Plaintiffs had known of their Vehicle’s defects at the 2 Case 2:22-cv-04011-RSWL-KS Document 27 Filed 10/24/22 Page3of6 Page ID #:187

1] time of purchase, they would have refused to purchase 2] the Vehicle or request a lower price. Id. Q 26. 3] B. Procedural Background 4 Plaintiffs filed their Complaint [1] on June 14, 5 9 2022. Defendant filed the instant Motion [20] on 6 | September 16, 2022. Plaintiff opposed [24] the Motion 7 | on September 27, 2022. Defendant replied [25] on 8 | October 4, 2022. 9 Il. DISCUSSION 10] A. Legal Standard 11 Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 | states that “after the pleadings are closed — but early 13 | enough not to delay trial — a party may move for 14 | judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). A 15 | motion for judgment on the pleadings is “functionally 16 J identical” to a Rule 12(b) (6) motion to dismiss for 17 | failure to state a claim, meaning the same pleading 18 | standards apply. Dworkin v. Hustler Mag., Inc., 867 197 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989). The allegations of the 20 | non-moving party must be accepted as true, and any 21 | allegations made by the moving party that have been 22 | denied or contradicted are assumed to be false. 23 | MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle, 457 F.3d 1079, 1081 24] (9th Cir. 2006). Judgment on the pleadings is proper 25] “only if it is clear that no relief could be granted 26 J under any set of facts that could be proved consistent 27 | with the allegations.” Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219, 289 1225 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Swierkiewicz v. Sorema

Case 2:22-cv-04011-RSWL-KS Document 27 Filed 10/24/22 Page4of6 Page ID #:188

1] N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002)). 2 In ruling on a motion for judgment on the 3 | pleadings, courts may consider documents attached to the 4 {| complaint, documents incorporated by reference into the 5 | complaint, or matters properly subject to judicial 6 | notice. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907-08 7 (9th Cir. 2003). “Even if a document is not attached to 8 | a complaint, it may be incorporated by reference into a 9 | complaint if the plaintiff refers extensively to the 10 | document or the document forms the basis of the 11] plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 908. 12]B. Analysis 13 Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ claim for 14 ] fraudulent inducement-concealment fails because omission 15 | of material fact was not pled with particularity or, 16 J alternatively, because the economic loss rule bars 17] Plaintiffs’ claim. Def.’s Mot. For Partial J. on the 18 | Pleadings (“Mot.”) 1:7-10, ECF No. 20. Plaintiffs 19 | counter that they adequately pled circumstances 20 | constituting fraud and that the economic loss rule is 21 7 inapplicable because their contract was fraudulently 22 | induced. Pls.’ Opp’n to Mot. (“Opp’n”) 1:2-3, ECF 23] No. 24. For the following reasons, the Court finds that 24] Plaintiffs did not plead their claim with particularity 25 | and the Court should therefore GRANT Defendant’s 26 | Motion.? 27 |§_ — 1 Since the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion on Rule 9(b) 28 | grounds, the Court need not address whether the economic loss

Case 2:22-cv-04011-RSWL-KS Document 27 Filed 10/24/22 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:189

1 The Rule 9(b) particularity standard for a fraud

2 claim requires a plaintiff to plead the who, what, when,

3 where, and how of the alleged misconduct. Fed. R. Civ. 4 P. 9(b). Specifically, a plaintiff averring an omission 5 claim “must describe the content of the omission and 6 where the omitted information should or could have been 7 revealed.” Tapia v. Davol Inc., 116 F. Supp. 3d 1149, 8 1163 (S.D. Cal. 2015). Additionally, an omission claim 9 pertaining to a defective product must identify the 10 defect and not merely the symptoms or consequential 11 performance of the defect. In re Ford Motor Co. DPS6 12 Powershift Transmission Prods. Liab. Litig., 483 F. 13 Supp. 3d 838, 847 (C.D. Cal 2020) (finding failure to 14 plead with particularity where plaintiff merely noted 15 the transmission system was defective without 16 identifying the precise defect). 17 Here, Plaintiffs fail to plead their claim with 18 particularity. Although Plaintiffs describe the 19 information that was allegedly omitted along with when 20 the omitted information could have been revealed, 21 Plaintiffs ultimately fail to identify the Vehicle’s 22 defects. The Plaintiffs list symptoms of the defect – 23 stalling, shutting off, and/or loss of power – without 24 identifying the precise defect of the Vehicle. Compl. ¶ 25 18. Although Plaintiffs mention that the Transmission 26 and PCM were defective, the court in In re Ford Motor 27

28 rule bars Plaintiffs’ claim and declines to do so. 5 Case 2:22-cv-04011-RSWL-KS Document 27 Filed 10/24/22 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:190

1 Co. determined that merely alleging that part of a

2 Vehicle was defective was not sufficiently

3 particularized. 483 F. Supp. 3d at 847; see Compl. ¶ 18. 4 Just as the “transmission defect” in In re Ford Motor 5 Co. did not precisely identify the defect pursuant to 6 Rule 9(b), the Transmission and PCM defects mentioned in 7 the Complaint do not sufficiently identify the defect to 8 satisfy Rule 9(b)’s particularity standard. 9 III. CONCLUSION 10 In sum, Plaintiffs fail to plead its fraudulent 11 inducement – concealment claim with particularity. 12 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s 13 Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 DATED: October 24, 2022 _______/S_/ _R_O_N_A_L_D_ S_._W_. _LE_W_________ HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW 18 Senior U.S. District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6