Thornton v. FCA US LLC

Background

Patrick Thornton alleged that he purchased a 2016 Ram Pickup 1500 from Guy Strohmeier’s Auto Group (GSAG). He alleged that the vehicle came with an express written warranty lasting three years or 58,575 miles, and that defects later appeared, including engine overheating and failures to start. He further alleged that his spouse brought the vehicle in for repairs several times but that the problems continued to return.

Thornton asserted three causes of action against GSAG under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act—the First, Fifth, and Ninth Causes of Action. He also asserted the Eighth Cause of Action under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), alleging that GSAG knew the vehicle had defects and failed to disclose them and their potential consequences.

Song-Beverly Claims

GSAG moved to dismiss the three Song-Beverly claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that they were barred by the four-year statute of limitations and that the vehicle was sold “as is.”

The court declined to treat a sales contract submitted by GSAG as judicially noticeable. The court explained that the contract and its signing date were not facts generally known or readily verifiable from sources whose accuracy could not reasonably be questioned. The document was also not properly authenticated, and Thornton objected to its admissibility. The court likewise declined to convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment based on the document.

The court also rejected GSAG’s limitations argument at the pleading stage. Under the applicable rule, a Song-Beverly claim accrues when the plaintiff reasonably knows or should know that a breach occurred—that is, when the defendant will not or cannot repair an existing defect. Thornton was not required to plead the dates of the repair visits. The court therefore held that GSAG had not shown that the Song-Beverly claims were time-barred.

The court also refused to dismiss the claims based on the alleged “as is” sale. GSAG relied on a buyer’s guide that purportedly contained a checked “AS IS – NO WARRANTY” box. For the same reasons applicable to the sales contract, the court determined that it could not take judicial notice of the buyer’s guide, that the document was not properly authenticated, and that it would not convert the motion into one for summary judgment. GSAG therefore had not shown that California Civil Code section 1792.5 barred the Song-Beverly claims.

CLRA Claim

GSAG argued that the CLRA claim was subject to dismissal because it did not satisfy Rule 9(b), which requires fraud-based claims to describe the alleged misconduct in particular detail, including who, what, when, where, and how.

The court agreed. It found that the First Amended Complaint alleged only conclusorily that GSAG knew the vehicle was defective when it sold it to Thornton. The court held that this allegation did not meet Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirement.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part GSAG’s motion to dismiss. As to the Eighth Cause of Action, the motion was granted, and that claim was dismissed with leave to amend. As to the First and Fifth Causes of Action alleged against GSAG and the Ninth Cause of Action, the motion was denied.

The court permitted Thornton to file a Second Amended Complaint to amend the Eighth Cause of Action and, if he chose, the First, Fifth, and Ninth Causes of Action, by September 21, 2022. The court stated that he could not add a new claim without first obtaining permission. If he did not timely amend, the action would proceed against GSAG on the First, Fifth, and Ninth Causes of Action as alleged in the First Amended Complaint.