900 F. Supp. 2d 427
D.N.J.2012Background
- Plaintiff Mickens sues Ford on CFA claims tied to alleged galvanic corrosion in aluminum hood panels across fourteen Ford/Lincoln/Mercury models.
- Plaintiff purchased a 2006 Ford Mustang GT in 2005 with a five-year corrosion warranty and a bumper-to-bumper warranty; corrosion later appeared on the hood.
- Aluminum hood design change in 2000 models allegedly caused galvanic corrosion when in contact with iron parts.
- Ford allegedly knew of galvanic corrosion risk and issued service bulletins (TSB 04-25-1 in 2004 and 06-25-15 in 2006) but did not address the underlying design.
- Count I alleges CFA violation for failing to certify a model-wide defect under the Lemon Law; Count II alleges knowing omission; Count III alleges deceptive warranty practices.
- Court grants in part and denies in part Ford’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion: Count I dismissed with prejudice; Counts II and III survive allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation linking Lemon Law reporting to losses. | Mickens: reporting would have triggered remedies and prevented purchases. | Reporting would not plausibly affect Mickens’s purchase; actions by the Division are speculative. | Count I dismissed for lack of plausible causation. |
| Knowledge omission claim viability under CFA. | Warranty context does not bar knowing-omission CFA claim. | Warranty disclosures negate CFA liability; no knowing omission. | Count II survives; knowing omission pleaded with plausibility. |
| Deceptive conduct under CFA (Count III) sufficiency. | Deceptive warranty scheme alleged, not mere misrepresentations. | Need for misrepresentation specifics; 9(b) concerns. | Count III survives as de facto deception (not just misrepresentation). |
| Ascertainable loss and causal nexus for Counts II and III. | Loss shown by replacement costs, rental, and diminished value; causal link alleged. | Loss proof not too speculative at this stage. | Counts II and III adequately plead ascertainable loss and causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 138 N.J. 2 (1994) (CFA elements and the disjunctive unlawful acts, including omissions, require a causal nexus)
- Lemelledo v. Beneficial Mgmt. Corp. of Am., 150 N.J. 255 (1997) (Remedial purpose and broad CFA protection; expansion of consumer protections)
- Gennari v. Weichert Co. Realtors, 148 N.J. 582 (1997) (CFA interpretation to protect consumers broadly; three elements of CFA claim)
- Meshinsky v. Nichols Yacht Sales, Inc., 110 N.J. 464 (1988) (Causation standards for CFA claims; proximate link between unlawful conduct and loss)
- Maniscalco v. Brother Int’l Corp. (USA), 627 F. Supp. 2d 494 (D.N.J. 2009) (Ascertainable loss; causation standards; CFA claims in product-defect contexts)
- Perkins v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 383 N.J. Super. 99 (App. Div. 2006) (Warranty timing and CFA implications; post-warranty defects potential liability)