346 F. Supp. 3d 1310
D. Me.2018Background
- Plaintiff Michael Knotts (MN) bought a 2012 Nissan Versa with a CVT; alleges the CVT is defectively prone to loss of acceleration, often manifesting shortly after Nissan's warranty expires.
- NNA (Nissan North America) provides a written warranty (36 months/36,000 miles general; 60 months/60,000 miles powertrain) requiring use of authorized dealers for warranty service.
- Knotts alleges Nissan knew or should have known of the CVT defect from testing, dealer complaints, NHTSA complaints, and online posts but failed to disclose it.
- Knotts sues on behalf of putative national and Minnesota classes asserting: MDTPA (Minn. deceptive trade practices), Minnesota False Advertising statute, breach of express and implied warranties, fraudulent misrepresentation/concealment, and unjust enrichment.
- NNA moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (challenging multiple claims) and to strike/dismiss the nationwide class under Bristol-Myers Squibb (personal jurisdiction over absent class members).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of express warranty | Warranty covered transmission defects; vehicle suffered transmission-related failure and Nissan refused coverage after out-of-warranty, third-party repairs | Warranty only covers defects in materials/workmanship within time/mileage and requires authorized-dealer repairs; Knotts did not use an authorized dealer | Dismissed with prejudice: Knotts did not allege he presented vehicle to an authorized Nissan dealer as required by the warranty |
| Breach of implied warranty | CVTs were not merchantable; defect is latent and often manifests after warranty; warranty durational limits unconscionable given alleged Nissan knowledge | Implied-warranty claim fails because defect manifested after express-warranty period and vehicle ran for years without issue | Survives pleading stage: court finds unconscionability plausibly alleged; claim permitted to proceed to discovery |
| Unjust enrichment (alternative) | Nissan was unjustly enriched by selling defective vehicles and retaining profits despite knowledge; pleaded in the alternative | Unjust enrichment unavailable where contract/warranty exists and plaintiff bought from dealer (attenuated benefit to NNA) | Survives: allowed as alternative theory at this stage; may be dismissed later if enforceable contract governs |
| Fraudulent misrepresentation/omission & Minn. False Advertising | Nissan made affirmative and omission-based misrepresentations (website claims re: CVT performance); Knotts relied on representations | Claims plead fraud without Rule 9(b) particularity (who/when/where/reliance), and affirmative statements may be puffery; MFSAA requires showing the ad occurred in Minnesota and causal nexus | Fraud and MFSAA claims dismissed without prejudice for lack of particularity (Rule 9(b)) and missing allegations of viewing/reliance/location; plaintiff may replead |
| MDTPA injunctive relief standing | Ongoing advertising and safety risk create a real threat of future harm supporting injunctive relief | Knotts only alleges past harm and seeks damages, so no likelihood of future harm | Survives: court finds plaintiff adequately alleged risk of future harm to seek injunctive relief under MDTPA |
| Motion to strike nationwide class under Bristol-Myers Squibb | N/A (plaintiff opposes) | BMS requires specific jurisdiction for claims of nonresidents; absent class members who bought outside MN lack sufficient MN contacts; nationwide class should be struck pre-certification | Denied: court holds BMS (a mass-tort ruling) does not control unnamed class members in a federal class action; pre-certification striking is inappropriate here |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plaintiff must plead facts that make entitlement to relief plausible)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must raise right to relief above speculative level)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (limits on general jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (specific jurisdiction requires connection between forum and the specific claims)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (Fourteenth Amendment limits on specific jurisdiction over nonresidents in mass-tort context)
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (forum state may exercise jurisdiction over absent class-action plaintiffs)
- Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (non-named class members may be parties for some procedural purposes)