American Suzuki Motor Corporation v. John Burns and Jill S. Hearn., 81 So. 3d 320

Plaintiffs sue American Suzuki and local dealers for breach of warranty, diminution in value, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, seeking class relief.
Alleged that closing of North Alabama Suzuki dealerships in March 2009 left no nearby warranty service, effectively barring plaintiffs from warranty work.
American Suzuki later formed a warranty-service-provider agreement with Bentley Auto in Madison County (April 2009) for warranty service at Bentley Hyundai.
American Suzuki moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6); plaintiffs did not respond to the motion.
Trial court conducted a hearing and denied the motion to dismiss on July 7, 2009; mandamus petition was filed and treated as a petition for permission to appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether constructive breach of warranty is cognizable	Plaintiffs rely on constructive breach of warranty as a theory.	Defendants contend constructive breach is not a cognizable theory.	Constructive breach of warranty not cognizable
Whether plaintiffs stated a cognizable claim under Rule 12(b)(6)	Allege breach and related claims based on warranty service failures.	No recognized legal theory; no actual denial or request for warranty service alleged.	No cognizable legal theory pleaded; dismissal appropriate
Accrual/ Timing of warranty breach claim	Breach occurs when warranties require service and is hindered by closure of dealerships.	Not alleged that plaintiffs sought or were denied service; accrual not established.	Accrual not established; failure to plead a claim
Abuse of mandamus / jurisdiction to review	Denial of dismissal is mandatorily reviewable under mandamus.	Denial of dismissal generally not reviewable; exceptions apply only to immunity matters.	Petitions treated as Rule 5 permission to appeal; mandamus granted to reverse

Ex parte Haralson, 853 So.2d 928 (Ala. 2003) (denial of motion to dismiss reviewability and immunity exception)
Ex parte Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 825 So.2d 758 (Ala. 2002) (immunity exception to mandamus review)
Conseco Fin. Corp. v. Sharman, 828 So.2d 890 (Ala. 2001) (need for Rule 5 permission to appeal for denial of Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
Robinson v. Computer Servicenters, Inc., 360 So.2d 299 (Ala. 1978) (dismissal standards and interlocutory appeal framework)
Nance v. Matthews, 622 So.2d 297 (Ala. 1993) (pleading standard for cognizable legal theory under Rule 12(b)(6))
Brown v. General Motors Corp., 14 So.3d 104 (Ala. 2009) (breach of repair warranty accrues at failure to repair)
Fontenot v. Bramlett, 470 So.2d 669 (Ala. 1985) (pleading to avoid dismissal: cognizable theory required)
Rice v. United Ins. Co. of America, 465 So.2d 1100 (Ala. 1984) (test for whether pleaded facts support a cognizable theory)
Shandong Yinguang Chem. Indus. Joint Stock Co., Ltd. v. Potter, 607 F.3d 1029 (5th Cir. 2010) (plaintiff must plead a plausible cognizable claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for 12(b)(6) dismissals)
Tompkins v. United Healthcare of New England, Inc., 203 F.3d 90 (1st Cir. 2000) (survival of complaint requires sufficient facts to warrant recovery on cognizable theory)
Rice v. United Ins. Co. of America, 465 So.2d 1100 (Ala. 1984) (cognizable theory required for relief)