708 F. App'x 242
6th Cir.2017Background
- Rosenbaum purchased a 2012 Prius Plug-In from Toyota, relying on marketing that represented an electric-only range of at least 13 miles.
- He intended to commute 12.07 miles in electric-only mode but discovered the car achieved only 8–10 electric miles and would not operate in electric-only mode below 55°F.
- Rosenbaum sued Toyota in federal court asserting: breach of contract; breach of express and implied warranties of merchantability; and violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), seeking class relief.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6): finding no privity for contract or express-warranty claims, insufficient factual allegations to support a breach of implied merchantability, and that Toyota’s advertising was governed by law and thus exempted from the MCPA.
- Rosenbaum moved under Rule 60(b)(1) to relitigate implied-warranty issues with new arguments tailored to fitness for a particular purpose; the district court denied relief as the new theory was not previously pled.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding Rosenbaum failed to plead a fitness-for-purpose claim and that the Rule 60(b) motion did not justify reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rosenbaum adequately alleged breach of implied warranty of merchantability | Vehicle failed ordinary purpose because it did not meet advertised electric range and would not run in electric-only mode under 55°F | Advertised performance did not show vehicle was unfit for ordinary purpose; complaint lacked facts about industry average or substandard quality | Dismissal affirmed—complaint did not plead merchantability defect adequately |
| Whether plaintiff pled a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose | Rosenbaum argued facts showed he bought the car for a particular purpose (12.07-mile electric commute) and Toyota knew that purpose | Toyota argued no fitness-for-purpose claim was pled in the complaint | Court held Rosenbaum did not plead this separate warranty; new theory could not be raised in Rule 60(b) motion |
| Whether lack of privity defeats breach of contract and express warranty claims | Rosenbaum contended Toyota’s marketing induced the purchase directly | Toyota maintained Rosenbaum failed to allege privity with manufacturer | District court dismissal for lack of privity affirmed |
| Whether Toyota’s advertising claims are exempt from MCPA liability | Rosenbaum asserted advertising was deceptive under MCPA | Toyota argued advertisements were specifically authorized and governed by federal/state law, invoking MCPA exemption | Court agreed with district court that MCPA claim was precluded by the statutory exemption |
Key Cases Cited
- Jinks v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 250 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2001) (Rule 60(b) does not permit reassertion of new legal theories or evidence to relitigate a prior judgment)
- Langley v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 502 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2007) (issues not raised or developed on appeal are waived)
- Bosway Tube & Steel Corp. v. McKay Mach. Co., 237 N.W.2d 488 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975) (distinguishing implied warranty of merchantability from warranty of fitness for a particular purpose)
- Moody v. Mich. Gaming Control Bd., 847 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2017) (on review of a motion to dismiss, courts accept plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and construe complaint in plaintiff’s favor)