Lien v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Background

Phat Lien bought a 2020 Mercedes-Benz GLC350E on October 30, 2021, from a dealership that was not Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. The vehicle still had a remaining manufacturer’s warranty when Lien bought it. Lien alleged that the vehicle developed engine, electrical, and emissions defects and that authorized Mercedes-Benz service representatives did not repair it within 30 days or within a reasonable time.

Lien asserted three claims under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act: breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and violation of California Civil Code section 1793.2(b), which requires covered repair work to begin within a reasonable time and generally be completed within 30 days. He sought to revoke acceptance of the vehicle, obtain a replacement or reimbursement, and recover damages and a civil penalty.

Mercedes-Benz moved to dismiss. The court had stayed the case while the California Supreme Court considered the same used-vehicle warranty issue in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC. After that court issued its decision, Mercedes-Benz sought dismissal without permission to amend, while Lien requested permission to add new claims.

Court’s analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must include enough factual allegations to state a claim that is plausible on its face. The court accepts well-pleaded allegations as true for this motion but does not accept conclusory statements or unsupported inferences as true.

For the express-warranty claim, the court relied on the California Supreme Court’s holding that the Song-Beverly Act’s express-warranty provision applies only when the new-car warranty was issued with the sale. Lien bought the vehicle from a third party, and the complaint did not allege that Mercedes-Benz sold him the vehicle. The court therefore concluded that Lien generally could not sue Mercedes-Benz under the Song-Beverly Act’s express-warranty provision.

The court also rejected the implied-warranty claim. It explained that California decisions hold that sellers or distributors of used goods, rather than manufacturers of new goods, generally have implied-warranty obligations in a used-goods sale. Because Lien did not allege that Mercedes-Benz sold him the vehicle, the implied-warranty claim failed as well.

For the section 1793.2(b) claim, the court found that Lien’s allegations merely repeated the legal requirements. Lien alleged that he delivered the vehicle to authorized service representatives and that the vehicle was not repaired within 30 days or a reasonable time, but the court held that he needed specific factual allegations showing how Mercedes-Benz violated the statute. The court also stated that any amended complaint would need specific allegations of intent if required for a claim Lien chose to add.

Disposition

The court granted Mercedes-Benz’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Lien’s express- and implied-warranty claims with prejudice because amendment would be futile. It dismissed the section 1793.2(b) claim without prejudice. The court granted leave to amend to the extent Lien wanted to add new claims that were timely or related back to the claims already filed. Any amended complaint was due within 28 days of the order.