Ng v. Nissan North America, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs leased a 2022 Nissan Armada from United Nissan Reno on February 27, 2022. The vehicle was covered by Nissan North America’s New Vehicle Limited Warranty. The warranty provided coverage for specified repairs needed to correct defects in materials or workmanship, subject to time and mileage limits.

The plaintiffs alleged that the vehicle had electrical, electronics, infotainment, recall-related, transmission, and other defects. They took it to an authorized Nissan repair facility on four occasions between August 2022 and July 2023. The facility determined that no repair was necessary during some visits, attempted a repair during another, and could not reproduce some reported problems. The plaintiffs alleged that the vehicle remained unrepaired and had continuing defects.

The plaintiffs’ operative complaint asserted one claim for breach of express warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. In an earlier order, the court had dismissed the express-warranty claim with permission to amend and had dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice.

Arguments and analysis

Nissan moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Under the court’s stated law, a plaintiff alleging breach of an express warranty must plead the warranty’s exact terms, reasonable reliance, breach, and an injury proximately caused by the breach. Claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act depend on the underlying state-law warranty claim.

Nissan argued that the plaintiffs lacked contractual privity, meaning a direct contractual relationship with Nissan. The plaintiffs did not dispute that privity is generally required, but relied on an exception for a buyer who relies on a manufacturer’s written labels or advertisements. They alleged that they had read Nissan’s product brochure before obtaining the vehicle. The court held that the complaint did not say that the brochure contained warranty advertisements or representations, or that the plaintiffs relied on them. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that reliance on the written warranty itself rescued the claim because the complaint did not allege that they relied on or even read the warranty when obtaining the Armada.

The court separately held that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged damages. The complaint stated only that they had suffered “general, special and actual damages” because Nissan failed to meet its warranty obligations. The court found those allegations conclusory and insufficient. The court noted that Nissan also argued that the plaintiffs had not alleged a violation of an express warranty provision, but stated that it did not agree with that argument and did not address it fully because of the other deficiencies.

Disposition

The court granted Nissan’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend. The court stated that this would be the plaintiffs’ last attempt to remedy the complaint and ordered that any amended complaint be filed by July 12, 2024.