East Bay Law v. Ford Motor Company

Filing 26

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting #10 Motion to Dismiss (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 EAST BAY LAW, 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 11 No. C13-2822 TEH Plaintiff, 10 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS v. FORD MOTOR CO., 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 This matter came before the Court on October 21, 2013, on Defendant’s motion to 18 dismiss. Having considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, the 19 Court now GRANTS Defendant’s motion for the reasons set forth below. 20 21 22 BACKGROUND Plaintiff East Bay Law (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant Ford Motor Co. (“Ford”) 23 represented in its marketing brochures that the 2013 Ford Taurus contains an upgrade 24 option for a voice-activated navigation system with a secure digital memory card (“SD 25 card”) for maps (the “navigation upgrade”), but in fact none of the vehicles include this 26 feature. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 9. Plaintiff includes as Exhibit A to the complaint, a copy of the 27 2013 Ford Taurus marketing brochure which lists under “Available Options,” a “Voice- 28 activated Navigation System with SD card for map and POI storage.” Id., Ex. A. The 1 1 brochure notes that this option also requires the purchase of either a 201A or 202A 2 Equipment Group package. Id. 3 On March 13, 2013, Plaintiff purchased a 2013 Ford Taurus SEL equipped with the 4 Equipment Group 201A package. Id. ¶ 4, Ex. A. The Equipment Group 201A package 5 includes a “voice-activated, in-vehicle connectivity system;” two LCD color displays; an 6 LCD touch screen; and an SD card reader. Id. On March 29, 2013, Plaintiff returned to 7 the same dealership and purchased an SD card containing roadmaps that it intended to use 8 for navigation. Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff attempted to use the SD card with the SD card reader in 9 its vehicle, but discovered the navigation feature would not work in the vehicle. Id. When navigation feature would not work because the vehicle did not have the navigation 12 For the Northern District of California Plaintiff took the vehicle to the dealership’s service department, it learned that the 11 United States District Court 10 upgrade. Id. It then inquired with Ford directly and was again told that the navigation 13 upgrade was not installed on its vehicle and allegedly was also told that the upgrade “could 14 not be made to work at all on any 2013 Ford Taurus SEL model.” Id. ¶ 8. 15 Based on the above, Plaintiff alleges that it should have received a navigation 16 upgrade but did not, and that contrary to the descriptions contained in Ford’s marketing 17 brochures, the 2013 Ford Taurus SEL model does not include a navigation upgrade. 18 Id. ¶ 9. Pursuant to California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. 19 Code §§17200 et seq. (“UCL”), it seeks injunctive relief in the form of a recall of all 2013 20 Ford Taurus SEL vehicles. 21 Ford moves to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. 22 Specifically, Ford argues that Plaintiff has not pled a cognizable harm as it only alleges 23 that it purchased the requisite equipment package for the upgrade, not that it purchased the 24 navigation upgrade itself; and that in fact Plaintiff did not purchase the upgrade at all. 25 Moreover, Ford contends that Plaintiff fails to allege any independent cause of action, and 26 therefore cannot pursue a claim under the UCL. 27 28 2 1 2 LEGAL STANDARD Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) when a plaintiff’s allegations fail “to 3 state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In ruling on a 4 motion to dismiss, a court must “accept all material allegations of fact as true and construe 5 the complaint in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Vasquez v. Los Angeles 6 Cnty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007). 7 A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal “can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To survive a motion to dismiss, 10 a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 11 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility 12 For the Northern District of California the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. 9 United States District Court 8 when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 13 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. 14 When ruling on a motion to dismiss, courts are generally limited to only those 15 allegations contained within the complaint, however, they may consider exhibits submitted 16 with the complaint. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 17 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1989). A court may also consider documents which are “incorporated 18 by reference,” that is documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint, or whose 19 contents are necessary to the complaint, and whose authenticity no party questions. 20 Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005). 21 22 DISCUSSION 23 Plaintiff alleges that the 2013 Ford Taurus SEL model carries an “upgrade option” 24 for a voice-activated navigation system with an SD card for maps. Compl. ¶ 6. The Ford 25 marketing brochure Plaintiff attaches as Exhibit A to its complaint similarly lists the voice- 26 activated navigation system as an “[a]vailable [o]ption” that also requires the additional 27 purchase of one of two specific equipment group packages, 201A or 202A. Id., Ex. A. 28 Plaintiff alleges that it purchased the Equipment Group 201A package – one of the 3 1 required equipment packages for the navigation upgrade. Id. ¶ 7. Nowhere in its 2 complaint, however, does Plaintiff claim that it purchased the actual navigation upgrade at 3 issue in this case. 4 Plaintiff does not rebut Ford’s argument that it did not purchase the navigation package, which includes an SD card reader, it should be able to simply purchase an SD 7 card of maps and insert it into the reader in order to have a fully functional navigation 8 feature. Pl. Opp. at 2-3. Ford’s brochure, however, states that either Equipment Group 9 201A or 202A is required for the navigation upgrade, not that those equipment groups are 10 all that is necessary for the upgrade. Compl., Ex. A. Plaintiff also submits as Exhibit B, a 11 photograph of the navigation screen from its vehicle to support its argument that the 12 For the Northern District of California upgrade. Rather, Plaintiff argues that because it purchased the requisite equipment 6 United States District Court 5 vehicle should have a navigation feature. Pl. Opp., Ex. B. The image merely confirms that 13 Plaintiff purchased the equipment necessary for the navigation upgrade, namely the LCD 14 screen included in Equipment Group 201A, not that Plaintiff purchased the navigation 15 upgrade itself. At argument, Plaintiff contended that it had purchased all the necessary 16 equipment for an upgrade and therefore it should have had the upgrade; again, it did not 17 claim that it had selected and paid for the actual upgrade itself. 18 As Plaintiff fails to allege that it actually purchased the very item it claims it did not 19 receive, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief. Although the absence of such an 20 allegation is sufficient to dismiss the complaint, the Court nevertheless also considers 21 Ford’s additional argument that Plaintiff did not in fact purchase the upgrade. 22 Along with its motion to dismiss, Ford submitted an invoice reflecting Plaintiff’s 23 purchase of the 2013 Ford Taurus SEL at issue here. Def. Opp. Br., Ex. 1. Although the 24 general rule is that when deciding a motion to dismiss, courts must disregard facts that are 25 not within complaint or attached thereto, courts may take into account documents “whose 26 contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which 27 are not physically attached to the [plaintiff’s] pleading.” In re Silicon Graphics Inc. Sec. 28 Litig., 183 F.3d 970, 986 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) 4 1 abrogated on other grounds by South Ferry LP, No. 2 v. Killinger, 542 F.3d 776, 784 (9th 2 Cir. 2008). Courts have also applied this doctrine, known as “incorporation by reference,” 3 to situations in which the plaintiff’s claim “depends on the contents of a document . . . 4 even though the plaintiff does not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the 5 complaint.” Knievel, 393 F.3d at 1076 (holding that district court properly considered 6 defendant’s submissions of images of entire internet website in evaluating motion to 7 dismiss slander suit premised on a single photograph and caption on that website) (citing 8 Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that where plaintiff’s 9 claims involved his health insurance plan, the district court properly considered documents attached to a motion to dismiss that described the terms of the health insurance plan)). 11 As Plaintiff’s claims necessarily depend on whether it purchased the navigation 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 upgrade it alleges it did not receive, and Plaintiff does not dispute the authenticity of the 13 invoice, the Court relies on the incorporation by reference doctrine to review the invoice 14 submitted by Ford. The invoice shows that Plaintiff’s vehicle included the requisite 15 equipment package, Equipment Group 201A, and that the only other optional upgrade 16 Plaintiff selected was leather seating. The invoice makes no mention of Plaintiff having 17 purchased the navigation upgrade. 18 As Plaintiff has failed to allege that it purchased the navigation upgrade which it 19 claims it was not given, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief and Plaintiff’s 20 complaint is thus dismissed. Moreover, the dismissal is with prejudice because the invoice 21 shows that Plaintiff did not purchase the upgrade, therefore Plaintiff cannot amend the 22 complaint to cure the deficiency. See Thinket Ink Info. Res., Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, 23 Inc., 368 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that dismissal without leave to amend is 24 improper, unless it is clear that the complaint cannot be cured by amendment). Because 25 Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed on these grounds, the Court declines to address 26 Ford’s arguments regarding the UCL pleading requirements. 27 28 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?