Marlen Mesutovich Izzetov v. Tesla Inc.

Background

Marlen Mesutovich Izzetov and Miss MMI, identified as Mr. Izzetov’s minor child, sued Tesla Inc. for damages arising from an incident in Crimea involving a Tesla Model X. The plaintiffs alleged that, on May 9, 2018, Miss MMI’s finger became trapped in the vehicle’s front-door “ice breaker,” a mechanism that senses resistance and helps the electric door open. Emergency responders allegedly used metal-cutting equipment and took two hours to free her finger.

The complaint asserted six claims: strict products liability, negligence, breach of implied warranties, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress to a bystander, and damages. Tesla filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), an alternative motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e), and a motion to strike under Rule 12(f).

Motion to Dismiss

The court denied Tesla’s request to dismiss the design-defect strict-liability claim. Tesla argued that the plaintiffs improperly combined design-defect, manufacturing-defect, and failure-to-warn theories and had not adequately pleaded a manufacturing defect. The court held that plaintiffs may plead alternative or inconsistent theories at this stage. It also found that the allegation that the Model X was defective and unreasonably dangerous because its door mechanism malfunctioned was sufficient to make the design-defect claim facially plausible.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ implied-warranty claim with prejudice. Under California law, an implied-warranty plaintiff generally must have a direct contractual relationship with the defendant. The complaint alleged that Mr. Izzetov purchased the vehicle through an agent who bought it from a car retailer in Prague, Czech Republic, rather than directly from Tesla. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that reliance on Tesla’s advertising created an exception for an implied-warranty claim, and held that amendment would be futile.

The court denied Tesla’s request to dismiss the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs. The plaintiffs relied on California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, and the court stated that a request for fees under that provision need not be pleaded in the complaint.

Motion for a More Definite Statement

The court denied Tesla’s motion for a more definite statement. It held that the complaint was not so vague or ambiguous that Tesla could not respond. Tesla’s own motion identified the product-liability theories at issue, and the negligence claim identified the alleged failure to exercise reasonable care.

Motion to Strike

The court granted Tesla’s motion to strike the complaint’s reference to “putative damages” and paragraphs 41 through 66. The parties indicated that “putative damages” was a typographical error referring to punitive damages. The court held that the paragraphs, which described the plaintiffs’ and their counsel’s post-incident communications and settlement efforts with Tesla, had no essential relationship to the plaintiffs’ tort claims or punitive-damages request.

The court also held that those communications were protected by California’s litigation privilege, which provides immunity from tort liability for communications related to judicial proceedings. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend because amendment would not be futile, cause undue delay, or unduly prejudice Tesla.

Disposition

Judge Davila concluded that Tesla’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The motion to strike was granted with leave to amend. The plaintiffs could file an amended complaint by May 14, 2020, but could not add new claims or parties without court permission or the parties’ stipulation.