The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh
DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, U.S.D.J.:
This matter comes before the Court upon motion of Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC ("Defendant") to dismiss portions of the Second Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs Vincent Luppino ("Luppino"), Cliff Stern ("Stern") and John Casiero ("Casiero") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), who assert claims for breach of express warranty, breach of written warranty pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"). No oral argument was heard pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. Upon consideration of the parties' submissions, and for the reasons stated below, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part.
On August 13, 2010, this Court issued an Opinion dismissing, without prejudice, (1) the warranty counts in the Amended Complaint on the grounds that "the facts alleged do not fully state claims as to each of the named Plaintiffs," and (2) the consumer fraud claims that were based upon affirmative misrepresentations. Luppino v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 09-5582 (DMC) (JAD), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83584, *15 (D.N.J. Aug. 13, 2010). Plaintiffs were permitted to amend their pleadings in order to cure these defects.
In the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), Plaintiffs specifically address the claims of each of the named plaintiffs:*fn2
Stern purchased a 2005 Mercedes-Benz SL 500 on or about December 31, 2005. After an electrical defect was discovered, Defendant replaced that vehicle in March 2006 with a 2006 Mercedes-Benz SL 500 with 18-inch AMG factory Rims. SAC ¶¶ 103, 104. Within the first few months of owning the 2006 Mercedes, Stern had to repair a failed Rim. SAC ¶ 119. The Rim was repaired at a parts distribution center which sells and distributes genuine Mercedes-Benz Rims. SAC ¶ 120. Stern paid out-of-pocket for the failed Rim instead of asking Defendant to repair or replace the RIM pursuant to the Warranty because he "became generally aware, from information readily accessible in the public domain, that Mercedes-Benz routinely refused to repair or replace Rims that have failed under normal driving conditions, and that Mercedes-Benz would claim the repair would not be covered under his Warranty." SAC ¶ 121. Stern's vehicle was covered by the standard Mercedes-Benz Warranty at the time that he repaired the failed Rim. SAC ¶ 122.
Casiero purchased a 2006 Mercedes-Benz E500 4Matic Sedan with 17-inch 5-Spoke Light Alloy Rims from an authorized dealer's auction on May 7, 2008. SAC ¶ 123. Within one month of owning his vehicle, Casiero had to replace a failed Rim. SAC ¶ 138. The Rim was replaced at a parts distribution center which sells and distributes genuine Mercedes-Benz Rims. SAC ¶ 139. Like Stern, Casiero did not seek repair or replacement directly from Defendant because he too became "generally aware . . . that Mercedes-Benz would claim the replacement would not be covered under his warranty." SAC ¶ 140. Casiero's vehicle was covered by the standard Warranty at the time he incurred the out-of-pocket costs to repair the failed Rim. SAC ¶ 142.
All three named plaintiffs assert that they were "repeatedly exposed to advertisements and other representations that Mercedes-Benz publicly disseminates" through a variety of media. SAC ¶¶ 90, 117, 136. Accordingly, at the time they purchased their vehicles, Plaintiffs were exposed to the following representations: (1) "Mercedes-Benz are high-quality, high-performance Vehicles;"
(2) "Mercedes-Benz Rims are durable, without defect, and suitable for the purposes for which they are intended;" and (3) "Mercedes-Benz Vehicles are tested by Mercedes-Benz to ensure that they maintain the highest standards of safety, innovation, performance, durability and strength in the automotive industry." SAC ¶ 118.
In deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the district court is "required to accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all inferences in the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the [Plaintiff]." Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 228 (3d Cir. 2008). "[A] complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations."
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). However, the Plaintiff's "obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must state a plausible claim. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). Thus, assuming that the factual allegations in the complaint are true, those ...