Moore v. MAV Motors Co.
- David Doty
- 0:21-cv-01170
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Moore v. MAV Motors, Judge Doty denied defendants’ motion to dismiss claims alleging odometer tampering and mileage deception.
Shanieca Moore, MAV Motors Co., and Western Surety Company. The order allows Moore’s adequately pleaded claims to continue past the motion-to-dismiss stage; it does not decide whether the alleged violations occurred or whether Moore will ultimately prevail.
What happened
Moore v. MAV Motors Co. concerns Shanieca Moore’s purchase of a used 2007 Chevrolet Suburban. Moore alleges that MAV Motors reduced the vehicle’s odometer reading from about 256,899 miles to 171,000 miles and sold it to her without disclosing the change.
Moore sued MAV Motors under federal and Minnesota odometer laws, alleging intentional deception or, alternatively, improper adjustment of the odometer during repairs. She also claims that Western Surety Company is responsible for monetary losses caused by MAV Motors’ violations. The defendants argued that Moore had not adequately alleged an odometer alteration or an intent to defraud.
Judge David S. Doty denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. He ruled that Moore had adequately alleged each claim, while noting that whether her allegations would ultimately be proven was a question for a later stage of the case.
The detailed version
- Moore v. MAV Motors Co. · No. 0:21-cv-01170
- David Doty
- July 29, 2021
Background
Shanieca Moore alleges that she bought a 2007 Chevrolet Suburban from MAV Motors Co., a Minnesota used-car dealership, in December 2020. The vehicle’s title had listed 180,670 miles in 2015. After several sales, the vehicle was sold to MAV Motors with an odometer reading of 256,899 miles. Moore alleges that MAV Motors then rolled the odometer back to 171,000 miles, either intentionally or while repairing the vehicle.
MAV Motors prepared a purchase contract stating that the vehicle had 171,000 miles. Moore alleges that she did not know the reading was inaccurate when she bought the vehicle and later learned of the discrepancy from the prior title and a CarFax report. She believes the vehicle had approximately 256,000 miles when she purchased it.
Claims and Motion
Moore alleges that MAV Motors intentionally altered the odometer to defraud prospective buyers, violating the federal Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, also called the Federal Odometer Act, and the Minnesota Odometer Act. Alternatively, she alleges that MAV Motors altered the odometer while servicing the vehicle but failed to reset it to zero and provide the required notice. She also alleges that MAV Motors violated Minnesota law by offering the vehicle for sale while knowing that its odometer had been altered.
Moore claims that Western Surety Company, which provided a surety bond to MAV Motors, is liable for monetary losses caused by MAV Motors’ statutory violations. Moore withdrew a separate claim alleging that MAV Motors made a false mileage statement in the purchase contract with intent to defraud.
The defendants moved to dismiss under the rule requiring dismissal of claims that do not adequately state a legally supportable claim. They argued that Moore had not plausibly alleged that MAV Motors altered the odometer or acted with the specific intent to defraud. They relied on statements they said appeared in title-related documents, but they did not provide those statements to the court. The defendants had also initially argued that the vehicle was exempt from certain mileage requirements, but they abandoned that argument in their reply.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that the federal and Minnesota odometer laws prohibit sellers from tampering with or misrepresenting a vehicle’s mileage. The laws also require a seller that alters an odometer while repairing a vehicle to reset the odometer to zero and provide written notice of the adjustment. A private plaintiff bringing a civil action must plead and prove that the violation was committed with intent to defraud.
The court declined to rely on the defendants’ unsupported descriptions of title-related documents, particularly at the early pleading stage. It held that Moore adequately alleged each claim, including that MAV Motors intentionally deceived her about the vehicle’s mileage. The court did not decide whether Moore would ultimately prove those allegations.
Disposition
Judge David S. Doty ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss, docket entry 7, is denied.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.