Squires et al v. Toyota Motor Corp et al
Filing
40
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is ORDERED that Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint and Motion to Strike Class Allegations (Dkt. # 16 ) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practice Act claims. The Court denies all other relief requested. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 3/21/2019. (rpc, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
WILLIAM SQUIRES, JESSE BADKE,
AHMED KHALIL, DOMINICK
VISCARDI, MICHELLE NIDEVER,
JOHN MURPHY, KEVIN NEUER,
NICHOLAS WILLIAMS, and
LAWRENCE BAKER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,
v.
TOYOTA MOTOR CORP, TOYOTA
MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:18-CV-138
Judge Mazzant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants Toyota Motor Corp; Toyota Motor North America,
Inc.; and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Action
Complaint and Motion to Strike Class Allegations (Dkt. #16). Having considered the motion and
the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the motion should be granted in part and denied in
part (Dkt. #16).
BACKGROUND
Oh March 1, 2018, Plaintiffs William Squires, Jesse Badke, Ahmed Khalil, Dominick
Viscardi, Michelle Nidever, John Murphy, Kevin Neuer, Nicholas Williams, and Lawrence Baker
filed this suit (Dkt. #1). On May 23, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint
(Dkt. #15). Plaintiffs are current and former owners and lessees of Fourth Generation Model Years
2016-17 Toyota Prius vehicles (“Prius”) (Dkt. #15 ¶ 1). Plaintiffs allege the Prius contains a defect
that causes the windshields of the vehicle to unexpectedly crack in foreseeable driving conditions
(Dkt. #15 ¶ 2). Plaintiffs seek to certify a nation-wide class action on behalf of themselves and
other current and former owners of the Prius (Dkt. #15 ¶¶ 1, 137–46).
Defendants filed their Partial Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint and
Motion to Strike Class Allegations on June 21, 2018 (Dkt. #16).
Defendants argue the Court
should strike Plaintiffs’ Proposed class and subclass definitions and Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently
allege certain causes of action (Dkt. #16). Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion on July 23,
2018 (Dkt. #24). Defendants filed a reply in support of the motion on August 3, 2018 (Dkt. #29).
LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that each claim in a complaint include a “short
and plain statement . . . showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Each
claim must include enough factual allegations “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion allows a party to move for dismissal of an action when the
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). When
considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded
facts in the plaintiff’s complaint and view those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Bowlby v. City of Aberdeen, 681 F.3d 215, 219 (5th Cir. 2012). The Court may consider “the
complaint, any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to
dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.” Lone Star Fund V (U.S.),
L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010). The Court must then determine
whether the complaint states a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. ‘“A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the [C]ourt to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600,
2
603 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “But where the wellpleaded facts do not permit the [C]ourt to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the
complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 679 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)).
In Iqbal, the Supreme Court established a two-step approach for assessing the sufficiency
of a complaint in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. First, the Court should identify and
disregard conclusory allegations, for they are “not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 664. Second, the Court “consider[s] the factual allegations in [the complaint] to determine
if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Id. “This standard ‘simply calls for enough
facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary claims
or elements.’” Morgan v. Hubert, 335 F. App’x 466, 470 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). This
evaluation will “be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Thus, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”’ Id. at 678 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
ANALYSIS
Defendants argue the Court should strike Plaintiffs’ Proposed class and subclass definitions
and Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege certain causes of action (Dkt. #16). Plaintiffs oppose all of
Defendants’ arguments, but withdraw Plaintiffs’ Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practice Act
claims (Dkt. #24 at p. 12 n.2). Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to the extent it
seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practice Act claims.
3
Concerning the remaining issues, after reviewing the complaint, motion to dismiss,
response, and reply, the Court finds Defendants’ arguments are better addressed at the certification
stage as Plaintiffs’ claims are sufficiently alleged to defeat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Amended Class
.
Action Complaint and Motion to Strike Class Allegations (Dkt. #16) is hereby GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ Rhode Island
Deceptive Trade Practice Act claims. The Court denies all other relief requested.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 21st day of March, 2019.
___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?