Lemke-Vega v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Background

Cheyenne Lemke-Vega alleged that she purchased a used 2019 Mercedes-Benz A220 on July 18, 2022, from Mercedes-Benz of Walnut Creek, which the complaint described as an authorized dealership and repair facility for Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA). She alleged that the vehicle had serious defects involving its powertrain, engine, transmission, steering, and heating and air-conditioning systems.

The complaint asserted three claims under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act: breach of express warranty under California Civil Code section 1793.2(d)(2), breach of implied warranty under section 1792, and violation of section 1793.2(b), which addresses repairing consumer goods within 30 days. MBUSA moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, and moved to strike portions of the complaint under Rule 12(f).

Court’s Analysis

Express-warranty claim. Lemke-Vega sought relief under the Act’s “refund or replace” provision, which applies to a qualifying “new motor vehicle.” MBUSA argued that the vehicle did not qualify because the complaint described it as used. Lemke-Vega relied on a California appellate decision, but the court found the reasoning of another California appellate decision, Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC, persuasive and adopted it. Under that approach, a plaintiff must allege that the vehicle was not previously sold to a consumer and was sold with full express warranties.

The court held that Lemke-Vega’s complaint did not make those allegations. It described the vehicle as used, did not allege that it had not previously been sold to a consumer, and did not provide facts about the terms of the express warranties. The purchase contract referenced an optional service contract with “Company MB PPM,” but it did not identify MBUSA, and the complaint did not allege that MBUSA issued the contract. The express-warranty claim was therefore dismissed, with leave to amend.

Implied-warranty claim. MBUSA argued that, as the vehicle’s manufacturer, it was not liable for an implied warranty involving a used vehicle. Lemke-Vega responded that MBUSA had acted as a retailer. The court explained that California law generally places implied-warranty obligations for used goods on the distributor or retail seller making express warranties, rather than the original manufacturer. A manufacturer may have retailer obligations when it sells directly to the public or otherwise steps into the role of a retailer.

The court held that the complaint did not allege facts supporting a reasonable inference that MBUSA had acted as a retailer. The retail installment sale contract was between Lemke-Vega and Mercedes-Benz of Walnut Creek, not MBUSA, and the complaint did not describe warranty terms showing that MBUSA acted as a retailer in the sale. The implied-warranty claim was dismissed, with leave to amend.

Thirty-day repair claim. Section 1793.2(b) requires covered repairs to be completed within 30 days. The court followed Ninth Circuit authority holding that the requirement applies to each individual repair-facility visit. Thus, a plaintiff must allege that at least one single repair attempt took more than 30 days to complete.

The complaint alleged that Lemke-Vega delivered the vehicle to authorized service representatives on multiple occasions and that the facilities did not bring the vehicle into conformity with the warranty within 30 days or begin repairs within a reasonable time. The court held that these allegations did not identify any individual repair attempt that was not completed within 30 days. It dismissed this claim, with leave to amend.

Motion to strike and disposition

MBUSA also asked the court to strike references to restitution, replacement, and civil penalties connected to the section 1793.2(b) claim. Because the court dismissed that claim for failure to state a claim, it denied the motion to strike as moot.

The court granted MBUSA’s motion to dismiss and denied the motion to strike as moot. The court permitted Lemke-Vega to file an amended complaint by June 12, 2023, and continued the initial case-management conference to July 19, 2023.