![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
September 30, 2015, Decided; September 30, 2015, Filed
14-CV-6135 (JMA) (ARL)
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
AZRACK, United States District Judge:
On October 20, 2014, plaintiff Angela Dixon filed this putative class action against defendant Ford Motor Company for breach of express and implied warranties and consumer fraud arising from an alleged defect in 2011 through 2015 model—year Ford Explorers that were leased or purchased in New York (hereinafter the "subject vehicles"). Defendant now moves to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. For the reasons stated below, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
The following facts are taken from plaintiff's complaint and assumed to be true for the purposes of this motion.
In October 2012, plaintiff leased a new 2013 Ford Explorer from an authorized [*2] Ford dealership in Lynbrook, New York. (Compl. ¶ 14, ECF No.1.) At some point, plaintiff noticed an exhaust odor in the passenger compartment of her vehicle while the vehicle was in use. (Id. ¶ 17.) She notified the Lynbrook dealership of the odor. (Id.) The dealership advised plaintiff to "operate the air conditioning in her vehicle" to limit the odor. (Id.) Plaintiff does not allege that she operated the air conditioner as directed by the dealership and that this failed to remedy the problem.
Later, plaintiff brought her vehicle to an authorized Ford dealership in Florida. (Id. ¶ 18.) She informed the dealer of the exhaust odor in the passenger compartment. (Id.) Plaintiff does not provide any details about her interaction with this Ford dealership and the dealership's efforts, if any, to repair her car. In particular, plaintiff's complaint does not indicate: (1) when her visits to the dealerships occurred; (2) whether her visits to either dealership were before or after defendant issued the relevant Technical Service Bulletins ("TSBs")1 discussed below; and (3) whether the dealership performed the repairs or diagnostics as prescribed by the TSBs. After plaintiff visited the Florida [*3] dealership, she continued to experience exhaust odor. (Id. ¶ 19.)
At some point, plaintiff discovered that carbon monoxide, an odorless, colorless, and tasteless gas that is toxic to humans, was entering the passenger compartment of the vehicle while the vehicle was in use. (Id. ¶¶ 20-21.) Plaintiff was not notified of this problem when she leased the vehicle nor was she notified that she and all occupants of the vehicle would be exposed to carbon monoxide while driving. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16.) As of the time plaintiff filed her complaint, her vehicle has not been repaired to eliminate the fumes from entering the vehicle. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 22.)
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146263 *; 2015 WL 6437612
ANGELA DIXON, Plaintiff, -against- FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant.
Notice: FOR ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION ONLY
Prior History: Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146282 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2015)
dealership, alleges, warranty, repair, consumer, express warranty, odor, exhaust, third-party, privity, implied warranty, misrepresentations, manufacturer, omission, leased, defect-free, misleading, purchaser, defendant argues, deceptive, defects, breach of implied warranty, carbon monoxide, defense motion, replacements, breached, passenger compartment, notified, alleged breach, economic loss