554 F. App'x 608
9th Cir.2014Background
- Appellants Gray appeal the district court’s dismissal with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) against Toyota Motor Sales and Toyota Motor North America.
- The court reviews 12(b)(6) dismissals de novo and accepts factual allegations as true.
- Gray asserts Toyota failed to disclose internal Prius fuel-economy data that conflicted with EPA estimates.
- California law limits a manufacturer’s duty to disclose to its warranty context unless a safety issue or affirmative misrepresentation is present.
- No misrepresentation is found where ads disclose EPA estimates and include a disclaimer that mileage may vary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Toyota had a duty to disclose EPA data contrary to estimates | Gray claims a disclosure duty exists beyond warranty. | Toyota argues no duty exists absent safety or misrepresentation. | No duty found under California law. |
| Whether CLRA/UCL/fraudulent concealment claims survive omission theory | Gray relies on omission of conflicting EPA data. | California law does not recognize omissions in this context; no misrepresentation. | Claims untenable under CA law. |
| Whether dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was proper | Gray pleads viable statutory/claims theory. | Claims fail as a matter of law; no duty or misrepresentation. | Affirmed the district court’s dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Paduano v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 169 Cal. App. 4th 1453 (Cal. App. 2009) (advertising EPA estimates not a misrepresentation)
- Daugherty v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 144 Cal. App. 4th 824 (Cal. App. 2006) (duty limited to warranty absent safety/affirmative misrepresentation)
- Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., 691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012) (advertisement with disclaimer may defeat UCL claim)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 2007) (pleading requires more than speculative allegations)