Beam v. Domani Motor Cars, Inc.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18085
S.D. Fla.2013Background
- Beam bought a 1970 Chevelle advertised with 56,537 miles after viewing Domani's website and communications.
- Plaintiff alleges Domani affirmatively represented the mileage as 56,537 and the purchase order reflected that mileage.
- Plaintiff signed a second purchase order after Domani allegedly removed the mileage representation and inserted 'exempt' regarding mileage.
- Plaintiff discovered the odometer was stuck at 56,537 soon after picking up the Chevelle and questioned Domani about the discrepancy.
- Domani refused to refund, claiming the vehicle—over ten years old—was exempt from the Odometer Act's disclosure requirements, prompting this federal action.
- Court grants in part and denies in part Domani Motor Cars, Inc.’s motion to dismiss; holds the ten-year exemption applies to disclosures only, not tampering provisions, and retains state-law claims via supplemental jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §32705 disclosure apply to a ten-year-old vehicle? | Beam argues the exemption does not apply to disclosures. | Domani argues the ten-year rule exempts disclosures, so §32705 claim fails. | Yes; §32705 claim dismissed (disclosure exemption applies). |
| Do tampering provisions §32703–32704 apply despite the ten-year disclosure exemption? | Beam contends tampering provisions remain applicable. | Domani notes tampering provisions lack an exemption. | Yes; §32703–32704 claims survive; tampering is actionable. |
| Should the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims? | Plaintiff seeks to preserve federal jurisdiction over related claims. | Defendant relies on dismissal of federal claims to defeat jurisdiction. | Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading; no bare recitals)
- Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949 (11th Cir. 2009) (claims must have factual support beyond labels and conclusions)
- Owens v. Samkle Auto. Inc., 425 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2005) (remedial Odometer Act construction supports broad reach of protections)
- American Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2010) (claims must be plausible and supported by facts (Rule 12(b)(6)))
- United States v. DBB, Inc., 180 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 1999) (statutory interpretation and standards for pleading in context)
- Diersen v. Chicago Car Exch., 110 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 1997) (Secretary’s exemption regulations invalid, legislative fix; discussion of exemptions)