Ouzounian v. FCA US LLC

Filing 30

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 9/10/2020 GRANTING 25 Motion to Dismiss. (Huang, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

STEVE OUZOUNIAN, an
individual,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17

2:20-cv-00179-JAM-KJN

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS

v.
FCA US LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company and
DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Defendants.

18
19

No.

This matter is before the Court on FCA US LLC’s

20

(“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss.

Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”), ECF

21

No. 25.

22

Defendant’s motion, Opp’n, ECF No. 27, to which Defendant

23

replied, Reply, ECF No. 28.

24

familiar with the events leading up to this motion, as they were

25

described in the Court’s previously issued Order.

26

ECF No. 21.

27

consideration of the parties’ briefing on the motion and

28

relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to

Steve Ouzounian (“Plaintiff”) filed an opposition to

The Court presumes the parties are

They will not be repeated here.

1

See Order,

After

1

Dismiss.1

2
3

I.

OPINION

4

A.

Legal Standard

5

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the complaint as not

6

alleging sufficient facts to state a claim for relief.

“To

7

survive a motion to dismiss [under 12(b)(6)], a complaint must

8

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a

9

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

Ashcroft v.

10

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (internal quotation marks and

11

citation omitted).

12

unnecessary, the complaint must allege more than “[t]hreadbare

13

recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

14

conclusory statements.”

15

to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory ‘factual

16

content,’ and reasonable inferences from that content, must be

17

plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to

18

relief.”

19

2009).

While “detailed factual allegations” are

Id. at 678.

“In sum, for a complaint

Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir.

20

B.

Analysis

21

Plaintiff’s second and third causes of action request that

22

the Court find Defendant strictly liable for design and

23

manufacturing defects.

24

¶¶ 24–37.

25

those defects, was “fraudulent, malicious[,] and oppressive” and

See Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”)

Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s conduct, with regard to

26
27
28

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled
for September 15, 2020.
2
1

1

“justif[ies] an award of punitive damages pursuant to California

2

Civil Code § 3294.”

3

in the Court’s June 16, 2020, Order, a claim for punitive

4

damages must set forth the elements as stated in the general

5

punitive damage statute, California Civil Code § 3294.

6

v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc., 191 Cal.App.4th

7

53, 63 (2010).

8

that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or

9

malice.

10

SAC ¶¶ 30, 37.

As described in more depth

Turman

These statutory elements include allegations

See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a).

Importantly, “[s]omething more than the mere commission of

11

a tort is always required for punitive damages.

12

Superior Court, 24 Cal.3d 890, 894 (1979)(citing Prosser, Law of

13

Torts at 9–10 (4th Ed. 1971)).

14

intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an

15

award of punitive damages.”

16

Cal.App.3d 159, 166 (1984) (citing Taylor, 24 Cal.3d at 894).

17

Plaintiff, in his SAC, has again failed to allege facts that

18

support a finding of the oppression, fraud, or malice necessary

19

for a punitive damages award.

20

suggest only that Defendant negligently failed to: (1) inform

21

Plaintiff of the recall; and (2) instruct its authorized dealers

22

to inform customers of the recall.

23

These facts fall short of rendering plausible Plaintiff’s claim

24

that Defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice.

25

Taylor v.

And “[t]he mere allegation an

Grieves v. Superior Court, 157

As before, the facts presented

See SAC ¶¶ 12, 13, 15, 18.

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s

26

claims for punitive damages included in his second and third

27

causes of action.

28

///
3

1
2
3
4
5

II.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 10, 2020

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4