Lohr v. Nissan North America, Inc, 2:16-cv-01023-RSM

Background

Plaintiffs Tamara Lohr and Ravikiran Sindogi allege factory-installed panoramic sunroofs on certain 2008–2016 Nissan models spontaneously shatter due to a common design/manufacturing defect (e.g., thinned tempered glass, ceramic coating, fastening issues).
Lohr’s 2015 Rogue sunroof shattered while driving; dealer replaced it under warranty but allegedly with an identically defective part. Lohr claims overpayment for a defective option and expenditure of time/money.
Sindogi’s 2012 Murano sunroof shattered after warranty expired; he paid insurance deductible and later traded the car. He and others reported similar incidents.
Plaintiffs assert Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA) claims, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) claims on behalf of a statewide class of listed Nissan models.
Nissan moved to dismiss for lack of standing, failure to meet Rule 9(b), preemption/primary jurisdiction as to injunctive relief, and failure to state warranty claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing of Lohr to sue	Lohr paid a premium for a panoramic sunroof and suffered time/money loss when it shattered; replacement was equally defective	Nissan: no cognizable injury because dealer replaced the sunroof under warranty; no adequate facts that replacement is defective	Court: DENIED dismissal — Lohr pleaded injury (loss of benefit of the bargain and repair costs)
Standing for injunctive relief	Plaintiffs face repeated harm because Lohr’s replacement part may be defective; injunctive relief would redress harm	Nissan: plaintiffs no longer own/lease implicated vehicles, so no realistic threat of repetition	Court: DENIED dismissal — plausible threat of repetition and redress by injunctive relief
Class-wide standing for other Nissan models	Plaintiffs alleged common defect across listed models and included other owners’ complaints to show similarity	Nissan: plaintiffs lack standing for models they did not purchase — insufficient similarity pled	Court: DENIED dismissal — allegations of shared defect and complaints suffice at pleading stage
CPA pleading standard (Rule 8 v. 9(b))	CPA claims need only Rule 8 notice pleading; alternatively, Plaintiffs met Rule 9(b)	Nissan: CPA claims rest on deceptive concealment and therefore must satisfy Rule 9(b) particularity	Court: DENIED dismissal — claims do not sound in common-law fraud; Rule 9(b) does not apply
Preemption / primary jurisdiction for injunctive relief	Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief effectively requiring recall/repairs	Nissan: injunctive relief conflicts with NHTSA/Safety Act or should be deferred to NHTSA under primary jurisdiction	Court: DENIED dismissal — no clear conflict shown; primary jurisdiction not warranted absent actual regulatory conflict
Breach of express warranty	Plaintiffs: replacement with same defective part and allegations unconscionable time limits make warranty claim viable	Nissan: repair complied with warranty; Sindogi’s failure occurred after warranty; express warranty claim fails	Court: DENIED dismissal — factual allegations suffice to plead breach and unconscionability at pleading stage
Implied warranty of merchantability (privity)	Plaintiffs claim third-party beneficiary status of warranties made to dealers	Nissan: no privity; plaintiffs are vertical non-privity purchasers without facts showing manufacturer-dealer-purchaser nexus	Held: GRANTED dismissal without prejudice — plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to show third-party beneficiary/privity
MMWA claims	Plaintiffs: MMWA follows state warranty claims; class notice rules allow initial class filing without pre-suit notice	Nissan: MMWA claims fail if state warranty claims fail; plaintiffs failed to exhaust informal dispute options and pre-suit notice	Court: DENIED dismissal as to MMWA claims tied to express warranty; GRANTED without prejudice as to MMWA claims based on implied warranty; exhaustion and pre-suit notice defenses are affirmative/not fatal now

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state plausible claim)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (constitutional standing elements)
In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Practices, and Prods. Liab. Litig., 754 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (courts' treatment of safety-act preemption and warranty claims in vehicle-defect litigation)
Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (Rule 9(b) applies where claim "sounds in fraud")
Milgard Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp. of Am., 902 F.2d 703 (limited repair warranty that cannot cure defect may fail of its essential purpose)