Montgomery v. Ford Motor Company

Background

Alison Montgomery alleged that she leased a 2013 Ford Escape on or about February 17, 2013, and received express and implied warranties. She alleged problems including a recall latch, air-filter failure, an inoperable trunk latch, battery failure, inoperable panel retainers, an inoperable hood, transmission leaks, stalling on two occasions, and a check-engine light.

Montgomery alleged that she presented the vehicle to Ford-authorized service and repair facilities, agents, or dealers on at least seven occasions. She claimed that the problems continued after a reasonable number of repair attempts. Her complaint asserted two claims under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act: breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and breach of express warranty. She sought replacement or restitution, damages, civil penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and other relief.

Montgomery filed the complaint in California state court, and Ford removed it to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Montgomery did not oppose Ford’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Implied-Warranty Claim

Ford argued that Montgomery’s implied-warranty claim was barred by the statute of limitations because the claim accrued when the vehicle was delivered on February 17, 2013. The court explained that California law imposes a one-year period during which an implied warranty exists for new goods and also provides a four-year period for bringing an implied-warranty claim after the breach occurs.

The court noted that federal courts in the district had taken different views about when the limitations period begins to run. It did not decide whether the discovery rule—which can delay accrual until a plaintiff discovers or has reason to discover the claim—applied here. Instead, the court held that Montgomery had not alleged when she discovered the defects or whether they were present during the applicable warranty period. She also had not alleged facts supporting equitable tolling, a doctrine that can pause a limitations period. The court stated that additional facts might overcome these deficiencies.

Express-Warranty Claim

To state an express-warranty claim under the Song-Beverly Act, a plaintiff must allege that the vehicle had a covered defect substantially impairing its use, value, or safety; that the vehicle was presented to an authorized manufacturer representative for repair; and that the defect was not repaired after a reasonable number of attempts.

Ford first argued that Montgomery had not identified a particular defect presented for repair at least twice without a successful repair. The court rejected that argument because the complaint alleged multiple repair visits, several defects, and that the defects continued after each visit.

Ford also argued that Montgomery had not provided enough detail about the warranty terms, the repair requests, the persons or entities receiving the vehicle, and the work performed. The court rejected that argument as well, finding that the complaint described the warranty terms and that Ford had not shown that the additional repair details were required at this stage.

The court nevertheless agreed that the express-warranty claim failed to state a claim because of the four-year statute of limitations. It concluded that Montgomery might be able to allege additional facts overcoming the time bar.

Disposition

The court granted Ford’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. It ordered that any amended pleading be filed within 45 days of the order. The court also vacated the scheduled hearing because Ford’s motion was unopposed.