GONZALEZ et al v. MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION et al
Filing
43
ORDER GRANTING DEFERRED PORTION OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS; RESCHEDULING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. To the extent plaintiffs were given leave to amend certain of the earlier-dismissed claims, any Second Amended Complaint is due no later than February 23, 2017. The Initial Case Management Conference is rescheduled for April 7, 2017. A Joint Case Management Statement shall be filed no later than March 31, 2017. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 02/09/17. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
IRIS GONZALEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
Case No. 16-cv-02087-MMC
v.
MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION, et al.,
ORDER GRANTING DEFERRED
PORTION OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISMISS; RESCHEDULING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Defendants.
15
16
On September 23, 2016, defendants Mazda Motor Corporation and Mazda Motor
17
of America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Mazda”) filed, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
18
Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to dismiss certain of the claims alleged in the First
19
Amended Complaint, filed July 15, 2016. On October 21, 2016, plaintiffs Megan
20
Humphrey and Matthew Ochmanek (collectively, “California Plaintiffs”) and plaintiffs Iris
21
Gonzalez, Charles Bunch, Anne Stom, David Woodward, Greg Thomason, Lisa Massa,
22
Dan Carney, Lorie Bender, Andrew Bauer, Linda Foley, Lou Graziani (collectively, “Non-
23
California Plaintiffs”) filed opposition, to which Mazda, on November 11, 2016, replied.
24
The matter came on regularly for hearing on December 2, 2016.
25
On January 5, 2017, the Court issued an order (“January 5 Order”) granting in
26
part, denying in part, and deferring ruling in part on Mazda’s motion to dismiss and, at
27
plaintiffs’ request, afforded the parties an opportunity to file supplemental briefing as to
28
the claims on which the Court had deferred ruling. On January 20, 2017, and January
1
2
27, 2017, respectively, plaintiffs and Mazda filed their supplemental briefs.
The Court, having considered the parties’ respective initial and supplemental
3
written submissions as well as the arguments of counsel at the hearing, rules as follows
4
on the deferred portion of Mazda’s motion.
5
As set forth in the January 5 Order, Mazda moves to dismiss the First Cause of
Action (California Consumer Legal Remedies Act) and Second Cause of Action
7
(California Unfair Competition Law), to the extent such claims are brought on behalf of
8
the Non-California Plaintiffs; in particular, Mazda argues, such claims “should be
9
governed by the consumer protection laws of the jurisdiction[s] in which the transaction[s]
10
took place.” (See Defs.’ Mot. at 4:25-5:5.) As further set forth in the January 5 Order, the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
sole remaining issue for the Court’s resolution is whether there are “material differences”
12
between California law and the laws of the states in which the transactions took place.
13
See Mazza v. Am. Honda Co., 666 F3d 581, 590 (9th Cir. 2012).
14
In that regard, Mazda, at the time it filed the instant motion, submitted substantial
15
evidence in support of its argument that material differences exist between California law
16
and the law of each of the states in which a Non-California Plaintiff resides, and plaintiffs,
17
by the January 5 Order, were afforded the opportunity to submit evidence and argument
18
to the contrary. In their supplemental brief, plaintiffs have now advised the Court that
19
they have decided to “rest on their arguments set forth in their dismissal brief and during
20
oral argument.” (See Pl.’s Br. filed Jan. 20, 2017, at 1:8-9.)
21
Accordingly, to the extent the First and Second Causes of Action are brought on
22
behalf of the Non-California Plaintiffs, Mazda’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED
23
and said claims are hereby DISMISSED.
24
Further, in accordance with the January 5 Order, to the extent plaintiffs were given
25
leave to amend certain of the earlier-dismissed claims, any Second Amended Complaint
26
is due no later than February 23, 2017.
27
28
Lastly, the Initial Case Management Conference, previously vacated in light of the
then-pending motion to dismiss, is hereby RESCHEDULED for April 7, 2017. A Joint
2
1
Case Management Statement shall be filed no later than March 31, 2017.
2
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
Dated: February 9, 2017
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?