Kuyawa v. Mercedes- Benz USA, LLC

Background

Conrad J. Kuyawa bought a used 2019 Mercedes-Benz Model S560 from Walnut Creek Luxury Cars, a third-party dealership that was not a party to the case. He alleged that the vehicle’s engine later began shaking, the check-engine light came on, and the vehicle remained at Mercedes-Benz of Walnut Creek for 40 days for repairs. He alleged that the vehicle underwent substantial engine and other repairs.

Kuyawa asserted three types of claims under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Act: breach of an express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and failure to repair or replace the vehicle within the required period. He also invoked the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act as a basis for relief related to the state-law warranty claims. Mercedes-Benz moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legally claim. It also alternatively sought to strike the repair-or-replace claim.

Express-warranty claim under the Song-Beverly Act

The court held that Kuyawa had not plausibly alleged that the vehicle was a “new motor vehicle” under the Song-Beverly Act. The court relied on California decisions stating that the Act’s relevant protections generally apply to used goods through the retail seller, rather than the original manufacturer. For a claim against the original manufacturer, the vehicle must qualify as new under the Act, including circumstances showing that it had not previously been sold to a consumer and came with full express warranties.

Kuyawa described the vehicle as preowned and did not allege that Mercedes-Benz had acted as the retail seller. The court rejected his argument that the warranty’s reference to the Act overcame the Act’s limits. It dismissed the express-warranty claim with leave to amend.

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim

The court found that it was not entirely clear whether Kuyawa intended to assert an independent violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or to use that statute to supplement his California claims. He did not identify specific provisions of the federal statute that Mercedes-Benz allegedly violated. Because his state-law warranty claims were not adequately pleaded, the court concluded that any federal claims based on those state-law violations also failed. The court dismissed the Magnuson-Moss claim with leave to amend and stated that Kuyawa should clarify any intent to plead violations of the federal statute itself in an amended complaint.

Implied-warranty claim

The court held that the Song-Beverly Act creates an implied warranty of merchantability for new consumer goods and extends implied-warranty obligations for used goods to the retail seller making express warranties, not generally to the original manufacturer. A manufacturer may be subject to such obligations if it steps into the role of a retailer by selling directly to the public, but Kuyawa did not allege that Mercedes-Benz did so.

The court therefore dismissed the implied-warranty claim with leave to amend.

Repair-or-replace claim

The court said that Kuyawa’s allegation that the vehicle remained at an authorized repair facility for 40 days without full repair probably would have been sufficient to plead a repair-or-replace claim if the claim had no other defects. The court nevertheless dismissed the claim because the Song-Beverly Act’s repair-or-replace provision applies to a “new motor vehicle,” and Kuyawa had not plausibly alleged that his preowned vehicle met that definition.

The court dismissed the repair-or-replace claim with leave to amend.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick granted Mercedes-Benz’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Kuyawa’s claims with leave to amend and allowed him to file an amended complaint no later than 14 days from the date of the order. The opening portion of the opinion also describes the claims as dismissed “without prejudice.”