297 F. Supp. 3d 958
E.D. Mo.2017Background
- Plaintiff Laura Hays filed a putative class action alleging Nissan sold Nissan Altimas with floorboards that corrode and develop holes (the "Defect") and failed to disclose the defect.
- Plaintiff asserts claims against Nissan North America, Inc. for: declaratory relief; breach of express and implied warranties (including under the Magnuson‑Moss Warranty Act); violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA); unjust enrichment; and fraudulent concealment.
- Nissan moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing (inter alia) that warranty claims are time‑barred, the design defect is excluded from warranty, the MMPA and fraud claims fail to meet Rule 9(b), and unjust enrichment is displaced by contract remedies.
- The complaint alleges Nissan made express warranty promises, had superior knowledge of the defect (including competitor design differences and customer complaints), and knowingly concealed the defect (tolling limitations).
- The court viewed all factual allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and found the complaint adequately pleaded plausible claims and tolling by fraudulent concealment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of express and implied warranty (including MMWA) | Nissan warranted vehicles; floorboard defect existed at/after sale; warranties cover defects | Claims barred by 5‑year warranty period/statute of limitations; design defect excluded from warranty | Denied dismissal — claims plausibly pleaded; implied warranty alleged; tolling alleged via concealment |
| Fraudulent concealment / tolling | Nissan knew of defect, concealed it, tolling statute of limitations | No duty to disclose; limitations expired | Denied dismissal — allegations of superior knowledge, customer complaints, and concealment sufficient to plausibly toll limitations |
| MMPA (fraud by omission; Rule 9(b)) | Nissan omitted material fact about defect; scienter alleged via knowledge and concealment | Plaintiff fails to plead particularity required by Rule 9(b); no duty to disclose | Denied dismissal — omission‑based MMPA claim pleaded with sufficient facts and alleged scienter; Rule 9(b) satisfied for omissions theory |
| Unjust enrichment | Nissan received benefit from sales despite defect; unjust to retain benefit | Remedy is governed by warranties/contract, so unjust enrichment unavailable | Denied dismissal — unjust enrichment permissible as alternative theory at pleading stage despite parallel contract claims |
| Declaratory judgment | Actual controversy exists about defect, Nissan's knowledge, and repair responsibility | Claim duplicative of monetary remedies and warranty claims | Denied dismissal — declaratory relief claim appropriate at this stage given alleged actual controversy |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (court need not accept legal conclusions as true)
- Strand v. Diversified Collection Serv., Inc., 380 F.3d 316 (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal rare)
- Stodghill v. Wellston Sch. Dist., 512 F.3d 472 (pleading facts viewed in plaintiff's favor)
- Wilson v. Marquette Elecs., Inc., 630 F.2d 575 (formation of express warranty)
- Sipe v. Workhorse Custom Chassis, LLC, 572 F.3d 525 (MMWA grants federal cause of action for state warranty claims)
- Owen v. General Motors Corp., 533 F.3d 913 (Missouri law on tolling by concealment for warranty claims)
- Abels v. Farmers Commodities Corp., 259 F.3d 910 (Rule 9(b) particularity for consumer fraud claims)
- Plubell v. Merck & Co., Inc., 289 S.W.3d 707 (Missouri standard on defendant knowledge and omissions under consumer statute)