Lemke-Vega v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Background

Cheyenne Lemke-Vega alleged that she purchased a 2019 Mercedes-Benz A220 from Mercedes-Benz of Walnut Creek on July 18, 2022, for $62,427.04. The sales contract described the vehicle as “used.” She alleged that the vehicle had serious defects involving its powertrain, engine, transmission, steering, and heating and air-conditioning systems.

Lemke-Vega alleged that express warranties accompanied the sale, including a basic warranty and federal and California emissions warranties. She also alleged that she did not know whether the vehicle had been previously sold or registered to a consumer, or whether it had been sold as a certified pre-owned or demonstrator vehicle. She brought four claims: breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of implied warranty under that Act, breach of express warranty under California Commercial Code section 2313, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Mercedes-Benz USA moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally recognized claim. The court had previously dismissed the original complaint and allowed Lemke-Vega to amend it.

Song-Beverly Express-Warranty Claim

The court held that the amended complaint did not adequately allege that Lemke-Vega purchased a “new motor vehicle,” as required for the refund-or-replace remedy she sought under California Civil Code section 1793.2(d)(2). The court adopted the reasoning of Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC, under which a plaintiff must allege that the vehicle was not previously sold to a consumer and was sold with full express warranties.

The complaint described the vehicle as used and did not provide facts supporting a reasonable inference that it had not previously been sold to a consumer. It also did not allege that the vehicle was sold with full express warranties issued by Mercedes-Benz USA. The sales contract’s optional service contract identified “MB PPM,” not Mercedes-Benz USA, and the complaint did not establish that the service contract was a full express warranty.

The court granted the motion to dismiss this claim with prejudice because Lemke-Vega had already been given an opportunity to amend and had not stated the claim adequately.

Song-Beverly Implied-Warranty Claim

Mercedes-Benz USA argued that, as the vehicle’s manufacturer, it was not liable for breach of an implied warranty concerning a used vehicle. Lemke-Vega argued that Mercedes-Benz USA had “stepped into the role of 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 on the original manufacturer. A manufacturer may assume a retailer’s obligations when it sells directly to the public or otherwise acts as a retailer.

The court found that the amended complaint did not allege sufficient facts showing that Mercedes-Benz USA acted as a retailer. The sales contract was between Lemke-Vega and Mercedes-Benz of Walnut Creek, and the complaint did not allege that Mercedes-Benz USA offered the listed warranties. The court dismissed this claim with prejudice, concluding that another amendment would be futile.

California Commercial Code Express-Warranty Claim

The court held that the complaint did not adequately allege the required elements of an express-warranty claim under California Commercial Code section 2313. It did not identify the statements or written warranties allegedly made by Mercedes-Benz USA, explain their terms, or allege that Mercedes-Benz USA issued them. It also alleged only generally that the vehicle had defects and that the defendant failed to repair it, without explaining how a specific warranty was breached.

Because Lemke-Vega raised this claim for the first time in the amended complaint and the court could not conclude that amendment would be futile, the claim was dismissed with leave to amend.

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Claim

The court treated the Magnuson-Moss claim as dependent on the state-law express- and implied-warranty claims. The complaint did not identify a separate violation of the federal Act, and the parties agreed that the federal claim stood or fell with the state warranty claims.

Because the court found that the amended complaint failed to state the state-law warranty claims, it dismissed the Magnuson-Moss claim with leave to amend. The court allowed Lemke-Vega to file a second amended complaint by October 3, 2023 and directed her to plead her best case.

Disposition

Judge Donna Ryu granted Mercedes-Benz USA’s motion to dismiss. The two Song-Beverly claims were dismissed with prejudice. The California Commercial Code claim and the Magnuson-Moss claim were dismissed with leave to amend.