894 F. Supp. 2d 558
D.N.J.2012Background
- Plaintiffs allege Nissan concealed a design defect in the RE5F22A 22A transmissions in Maxima, Altima, and Quest models.
- The defect is said to cause delayed shifting, heat buildup, slippage, harshness, debris, and potential total transmission failure.
- Named plaintiffs each experienced transmission problems in their Nissan vehicles within the relevant warranty periods or prior thereto.
- Plaintiffs assert Nissan knew of the defect and concealed it, and seek relief under multiple state warranties and consumer-protection laws.
- Nissan moved to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and 9(b).
- The court applies New Jersey choice-of-law rules to determine the governing law for each plaintiff’s purchase/repair location.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of express warranty viability | Warranties to repair defects during 5y/60k miles; Nissan knew of defect and failed to repair. | Problems did not manifest within the warranty period; limitation bar applies. | Express warranty claims survive; unconscionability claims dismissed. |
| Breach of implied warranty of merchantability viability | Transmissions failed within/near warranty, rendering cars unfit for ordinary use. | Implied warranty limited by express warranty terms; claims time-barred. | Creel and Abdullah state implied warranty claims survive at pleading stage. |
| Unjust enrichment viability | Alternative theory overlapping with warranty relief should not be dismissed. | Express warranties govern the relationship; unjust enrichment precluded. | Unjust enrichment claims survive for Creel, Nelson, Taplet, Ebner; Abdullah’s NJ law claim dismissed. |
| State consumer protection claims viability | Nissan concealed defects; omissions constitute deceptive practices under multiple jurisdictions. | Omissions must meet 9(b) standards and state-specific pleading requirements. | NJCFA: Abdullah survives; CLRA and UCL: Nelson survive; UTPCPL: Creel survive; ICFA: Taplet survive; OH OCSPA/ODTPA: Ebner survive; others partially dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Abraham v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 795 F.2d 238 (2d Cir. 1986) (life of warranty and knowledge do not alone render unconscionable)
- In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997) (integral documents and basis of claim may be considered on motion to dismiss)
- Cel-Tech Comms., Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999) (unlawful business practices under UCL borrow violations of other law)