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, and that the vehicle had defects involving its powertrain, engine, transmission, steering, and heating and air-conditioning systems. She alleged that the vehicle came with express warranties and that she presented it for warranty repairs on several occasions, but that it was not brought into conformity with the warranties.

The second amended complaint asserted two claims: breach of express warranty under California Commercial Code section 2313 and a claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a federal warranty statute. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the claims for failure to state a claim and under Rule 12(f) to strike portions of the complaint.

Express-Warranty Claim

The court explained that a California express-warranty claim requires facts showing that the seller made an affirmation of fact, promise, or description of the goods; that the statement became part of the basis of the bargain; and that the warranty was breached.

The court held that the second amended complaint did not cure deficiencies identified in the first amended complaint. It did not identify when the alleged warranty was issued, who issued it, what it covered, or the warranty’s terms. Although the complaint stated that a warranty manual was provided with the vehicle and referred to an attached copy, the manual was not attached. The court also found that the allegations about the warranty largely repeated statutory language without supporting details.

The court further held that the allegations about repairs did not adequately explain how Mercedes-Benz USA breached an express warranty. The allegations instead suggested that an authorized dealership addressed issues under the warranty. The complaint did not explain how occasions when the dealership could not duplicate reported problems amounted to breaches, and it provided no supporting details for the allegation that the vehicle remained nonconforming.

Because Lemke-Vega had already been given an opportunity to amend and had been told to plead her best case, the court dismissed the express-warranty claim with prejudice.

Magnuson-Moss Claim

The parties agreed that the Magnuson-Moss claim stood or fell with the state-law express-warranty claim. Because the second amended complaint failed to state a claim under California law, the court dismissed the Magnuson-Moss claim. The court concluded that another opportunity to amend would be futile and dismissed that claim with prejudice.

Motion to Strike and Disposition

Mercedes-Benz USA also moved to strike allegations concerning civil penalties under California’s Song-Beverly Act. The court denied that motion as moot because it had dismissed the second amended complaint.

The court granted Mercedes-Benz USA’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, denied the motion to strike as moot, and ordered the clerk to enter judgment and close the case.