44 F. Supp. 3d 965
C.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff Lynn Peterson purchased a 2008 Mazda CX-7 in September 2007 and alleges the vehicle contained a latent variable valve timing (VVT/VVT actuator) defect present at sale that later caused engine noise and a VVT assembly failure in March 2012, requiring repairs costing over $1,000.
- Mazda issued multiple Technical Service Bulletins (2007–2011) about VVT actuator engagement issues across models; owners reported failures and engine damage at relatively low mileage.
- Peterson originally pleaded multiple claims; after dismissal with leave to amend she filed a First Amended Complaint asserting: Song-Beverly implied warranty, breach of implied warranty, UCL (unfair), and declaratory relief.
- Mazda moved to strike certain marketing/warranty allegations and exhibits and moved to dismiss the Song-Beverly and UCL claims for failure to state a claim.
- The court denied most of the motion to strike (allowing certain background warranty/marketing allegations to remain) but struck some sentences Peterson agreed to remove.
- The court dismissed Peterson’s Song-Beverly claim and any UCL claim premised on Song-Beverly violations without prejudice for failure to allege symptoms manifesting within the statutory implied-warranty period, but denied the motion as to the UCL "unfair" prong and granted leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Song‑Beverly implied warranty claim | Alleged latent defect existed at time of sale; that is enough to plead breach | Must allege defect manifested (symptoms) within Song‑Beverly statutory period (≤1 year for new goods) | Dismissed without prejudice; plaintiff must allege symptoms within warranty period (need not allege discovery within period) |
| UCL "unlawful" claim based on Song‑Beverly violations | UCL claim tied to alleged Song‑Beverly breach | If Song‑Beverly fails, related UCL "unlawful" claim fails | Dismissed without prejudice to extent tied to Song‑Beverly breach |
| UCL "unfair" prong | Mazda’s conduct in selling vehicles with latent safety‑risk defect is unfair | As a matter of law, a defect that manifests after the express‑warranty period is not unfair | Court allowed plaintiff to proceed on "unfair" prong — allegations are sufficient under balancing/public‑policy tests; motion denied as to this claim |
| Motion to strike marketing/warranty allegations & exhibits | Background marketing and warranty materials are relevant to UCL and warranty‑duration context | Allegations/exhibits immaterial to the claims actually pled, should be stricken | Mostly denied; specific agreed sentences in ¶92 were stricken per plaintiff’s consent |
Key Cases Cited
- Keegan v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 838 F. Supp. 2d 929 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (permitting latent‑defect theory to support Song‑Beverly claim where defect rendered goods unmerchantable at sale)
- Ehrlich v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 801 F. Supp. 2d 908 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (same; latent defect can support warranty claim absent manifestation within statutory period)
- Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc., 174 Cal. App. 4th 1297 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (latent defects may support implied‑warranty claims even if discovered after warranty period where product was unmerchantable at sale)
- Moore v. Hubbard Johnson Lumber Co., 149 Cal. App. 2d 236 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957) (pre‑Song‑Beverly precedent treating merchantability as evaluated as if latent defects were known at time of sale)
- Daugherty v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 144 Cal. App. 4th 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (applying FTC Act §5‑style test; holding nondisclosure of defect that does not shorten effective life during express warranty may not be "unfair")
- Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming summary judgment on UCL "unfair" claim where post‑warranty manifestation was central; discusses scope of "unfair")
- Lozano v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007) (recognizes use of balancing test for unfairness in consumer UCL claims)