42 F. Supp. 3d 1306
C.D. Cal.2013Background
- Ali Asghari filed suit on behalf of a nationwide class against VW Group, VW AG, and Audi AG alleging a factory oil‑consumption defect in 2007–2013 Audi/Volkswagen 2.0L turbo engines.
- Plaintiffs seek to represent California and New York subsets and a California implied-warranty subclass; class vehicles allegedly burn oil abnormally fast.
- Plaintiffs allege pre‑2007 knowledge of the defect, concealment, and failure to recall, creating safety risks from engine failure.
- Plaintiffs bring CLRA and UCL claims in California, breach of warranty claims (express/implied under CA and NY law), Magnuson‑Moss Act claim, and NY GBL § 349 claim.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing choice-of-law/preemption issues and timeliness; plaintiffs respond with Mazza and related authorities.
- Court posture: motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) with leave to amend granted in part; some claims dismissed or limited, others preserved for amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law for CLRA/UCL claims | Asghari/Californians may apply California law despite NY purchase | Mazza requires applying transaction-state law; out-of-state claims may be barred by foreign law differences | Mazza applies to class claims; California law not applied to out-of-state purchases absent material differences |
| Material differences between CA and NY consumer laws | No material differences established; Mazza not triggered | Material differences exist; apply local law to non-California class members | Court deferred ruling; after briefing, Asghari elected to proceed under NY law for California claims |
| CLRA notice requirements and timeliness for Lamia/Calver/Prasobratana | Notice through Asghari sufficed; delayed discovery tolled some claims | Notice insufficient for non‑Asghari plaintiffs; discovery rules apply inconsistently | CLRA claims dismissed with leave to amend for other named plaintiffs' notice; limited timeliness issues addressed separately |
| UCL restitution and standing | Calver can seek UCL restitution where money traceable to defendants; standing satisfied by out‑of‑pocket costs | Restitution requires traceable money in defendant's possession; Calver purchased from third party | Calver's UCL claim (restitution) dismissed; standing for Calver upheld for injunctive/restoration claims through other theories |
| Breach of express warranty under CA and NY law | Privity not required for CA express warranty; reliance not necessary under some CA law; NY requires reliance | No privity; lack of reliance defeats express warranty claims under both CA and NY law | CA express warranty claim dismissed for lack of privity/reliance; NY express warranty claim dismissed for lack of reliance |
| Implied warranty under Song‑Beverly Act | Oil‑consumption defect renders vehicles unmerchantable; latent defect supports claim | Claims time‑barred; argued accrual and discovery rules; limited ability to plead latent defects | Calver/Prasobratana timeliness analysis subject to discovery rules; Lamia timely on discovery; Prasobratana time-barred; Calver timeliness unresolved for certain theories; implied warranty claim upheld for Calver |
Key Cases Cited
- Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (classwide choice‑of‑law issue; material differences between states' consumer protection laws)
- In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Practices, & Products Liab. Litig., 754 F.Supp.2d 1145 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (notice/settlement framework; fraudulent concealment context for CLRA/UCL)
- Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 663 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (CLRA/UCL materiality; consumer‑oriented misrepresentations and omissions)
- American Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.App.4th 1291 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (implied merchantability; latent defects can breach warranty)
- Seely v. White Motor Co., 63 Cal.2d 9 (Cal. 1965) (general warranty/consumer expectations framework)