310 F.R.D. 382
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- Plaintiff Johnny Edwards purchased a new 2014 Mack truck from dealer Chicago Mack for $116,762.73; Mack Trucks manufactured the vehicle and provided a limited warranty document to the buyer.
- The truck was serviced by Chicago Mack at least eleven times for defects including a severe left-leaning ride, an engine warning light, oil leak, and diesel exhaust fluid leak.
- Plaintiff sued Mack Trucks and Chicago Mack alleging breach of express warranty (Count I), revocation of acceptance and contract cancellation (Count II) against Mack Trucks, and breach of implied warranty, revocation/cancellation, and recovery of the purchase price (Counts III–V) against Chicago Mack.
- Mack Trucks moved to dismiss Count II (revocation of acceptance under 810 ILCS 5/2-711) for failure to state a claim; Plaintiff moved to strike all affirmative defenses under Rule 12(f).
- The court found Plaintiff had no buyer-seller relationship with Mack Trucks (manufacturer not party to sales contract), and thus revocation of acceptance is unavailable against a nonseller under Illinois law.
- The court also struck defendants’ boilerplate affirmative defenses under Rule 8/Twombly–Iqbal; some defenses were stricken with prejudice and others without prejudice to replead with factual support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation of acceptance (810 ILCS 5/2-711) can be asserted against the manufacturer, Mack Trucks | Edwards contends revocation/cancellation may proceed against Mack Trucks based on warranty and connection to sale | Mack Trucks argues revocation is only available against the seller (dealer), not a nonselling manufacturer | Dismissed with prejudice: Illinois law bars revocation claims against nonselling manufacturers (Mydlach controlling) |
| Whether the warranty/written materials create a "close link" making Mack Trucks liable | Edwards relies on cases recognizing close-link analysis (e.g., Novak) to treat manufacturer as party to transaction | Mack Trucks urges Illinois precedent rejects the close-link approach; only seller can face revocation claims | Court rejects close-link for Illinois, follows Mydlach; Novak is persuasive only, not controlling |
| Whether defendants’ affirmative defenses meet pleading standards under Rule 8/Twombly–Iqbal | Plaintiff argues many defenses are boilerplate, conclusory, lack facts, and should be struck | Defendants asserted 14–18 defenses, mostly single-sentence/boilerplate, claiming various substantive defenses | Court grants motion to strike: most defenses stricken; several (specified) allowed to be repleaded with factual support; others stricken with prejudice |
| Whether any remaining remedy exists against manufacturer | Plaintiff seeks other avenues after Count II dismissal | Defendants contended rule precludes revocation claim; remediation limited to dealer actions/warranty | Court notes New Vehicle Protection Act may permit a manufacturer refund/return claim for new vehicles after reasonable repair attempts — plaintiff could pursue that statutory remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requires plausibility)
- Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 226 Ill.2d 307 (Ill. 2007) (revocation of acceptance applies only against seller, not nonselling manufacturer)
- Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Novak, 418 So.2d 801 (Miss. 1982) (close-link analysis treating manufacturer as party to buyer-seller transaction — persuasive, not controlling in Illinois)
- Heller Financial, Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., 883 F.2d 1286 (7th Cir. 1989) (affirmative defenses are pleadings subject to Rule 8; motions to strike remove unnecessary clutter)
- Winforge, Inc. v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 691 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2012) (approaches to determine whether a matter is an affirmative defense)