Bertolotti v. A&L International Motor Corp.
1:16-cv-22185
S.D. Fla.Nov 17, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Nicola Bertolotti purchased a used Chrysler from A&L International Motor Corp. on January 29, 2016, for $9,981.00.
- The sale paperwork included an odometer disclosure showing 12,877 miles and expressly stated that 12,877 "is not the actual mileage," putting the buyer on notice of an odometer discrepancy.
- Plaintiff later obtained a CarFax report reflecting a March 2015 odometer reading of 89,892 miles and alleged the vehicle had salvage/rebuilt history.
- Plaintiff sued alleging: (1) violation of the Federal Odometer Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 32701–32711; (2) violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA); and (3) common-law fraudulent inducement.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b); the court considered the sale documents attached to the motion.
- The court granted the motion and dismissed all three counts with prejudice, concluding Plaintiff failed to plead the required elements for each claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Violation of the Federal Odometer Act (49 U.S.C. § 32705) | Bertolotti contends Defendants sold a vehicle with a rolled-back odometer, failed to disclose CarFax/title history (salvage/rebuilt), and conspired to violate the Act. | Defendants provided an odometer disclosure and an explicit warning of odometer discrepancy, satisfying the Act's disclosure requirements. | Dismissed — Plaintiff failed to allege intentional concealment or intent to defraud; required disclosures were provided. |
| FDUTPA (Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.) | Bertolotti alleges deceptive practice by withholding CarFax/title history and selling a vehicle with undisclosed salvage/rebuilt issues. | Defendants argue the odometer disclosure and warning gave actual notice, negating an unfair/deceptive act. | Dismissed — Plaintiff did not plausibly allege an unfair or deceptive act that caused actual damages. |
| Fraud / Fraudulent inducement (common law) | Bertolotti claims Defendants misrepresented the vehicle's condition and fitness for purchase. | Defendants point to the odometer disclosure and warning; no false statement of material fact was made. | Dismissed — Element of false statement not pled; Rule 9(b) particularity not satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (applies Twombly plausibility standard to factual allegations)
- Beam v. Domani Motor Cars, Inc., 922 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (describing odometer disclosure requirements under the Federal Odometer Act)
- Owens v. Samkle Auto., Inc., 425 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2005) (private action under Odometer Act requires proof of violation and intent to defraud)
- Huycke v. Greenway, 876 F.2d 94 (11th Cir. 1989) (intent to defraud can be shown by gross negligence or reckless disregard in odometer disclosures)
- Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. Cypress, 814 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 2015) (Rule 9(b) pleading elements for fraud-like claims)
- Dolphin LLC v. WCI Communities, Inc., 715 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2013) (FDUTPA requires deceptive act, causation, and actual damages)
- Brooks v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 116 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir. 1997) (Rule 9(b) particularity requirement for fraud allegations)
- Palm Beach Atl. Coll., Inc. v. First United Fund, Ltd., 928 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1991) (elements of actionable fraud under Florida law)