Consumer Protection: Mercedes-Benz fails to dismiss Lemon Law suit

Where purchasers of a Mercedes-Benz Sprinter van alleged the vehicle was not repaired despite seven different visits to dealerships within a nearly 14-month period, they plausibly alleged claims under the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act and Virginia’s Lemon Law.

Background

Plaintiffs Andrew Myers and Road Runner Transport & Delivery’s first amended complaint, or FAC, against Mercedes-Benz USA LLC asserts three counts: (1) under the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, or MMWA (Count One); (2) under Virginia’s Lemon Law (Count Two) and (3) a breach of contract claim. Defendant has moved to dismiss Counts One and Two.

MMWA

Defendant argues that the court should dismiss Count One because plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that the van in question here constituted a “consumer product” under the MMWA. Though the FAC makes clear that plaintiffs used the van for both personal and commercial purposes, defendant does not cite – and the court has not identified – case law establishing that the Mercedes-Benz Sprinter van falls beyond the bounds of the MMWA.

Defendant presents no evidence that the Sprinter van so clearly falls outside the consumer context. And as the implementing regulations stipulate that “[w]here it is unclear whether a particular product is covered under the definition of consumer product, any ambiguity will be resolved in favor of coverage,” the court refrains from creating a new bright-line rule about this specific product at this early stage of the litigation.

Defendant also argues that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that they provided defendant with notice and an opportunity to cure before commencing this lawsuit. However, plaintiffs’ allegations regarding seven different visits within a nearly 14-month time period plausibly suggest, at least at the pleading stage, that they gave defendant notice and an opportunity to cure before bringing this action.

Lemon Law

Defendant argues that, based upon an April 12, 2022, delivery date of the van, plaintiffs had to initiate a Virginia Lemon Law action by Oct. 12, 2023, so their failure to file their original complaint until Nov. 8, 2023, renders Count Two time-barred. In response, plaintiffs point to the Lemon Law’s “nonconformity” provision, which states that “[t]he lemon law rights period shall be extended if the manufacturer has been notified but the nonconformity has not been effectively repaired by the manufacturer, or its agent, by the expiration of the lemon law rights period.”

Here, the FAC alleges that plaintiffs repeatedly contacted defendant for assistance with the van, but defendant’s agents “would not consistently or accurately record the Plaintiffs [sic] complaints, and consistently ascertained there was nothing wrong with the vehicle.” The FAC adds that technicians at the Cutler Bay, Florida agent informed plaintiffs “that the engine was broken, parts were not available to fix the vehicle, and in some regions the parts did not exist to fix the Sprinter van.”

The court cannot infer from the face of the FAC whether these “contacts” included communications that would qualify under Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-207.11 as “notifications” of defendant. Because “all facts necessary to the affirmative defense” do not “clearly appear[ ] on the face of the complaint,” the court refrains from dismissing the Lemon Law claim based on the statute of limitations.

Defendant next asserts that the buyer’s order listed the “Purchaser’s Name” as “Road Runner Transport & Delivery LLC.” As such, it argues that Road Runner cannot bring a claim because it is not a “consumer,” and that Myers cannot bring a claim because it was not the “purchaser.”

Though the FAC does not allege that Road Runner transferred legal title to (or formally leased) the vehicle to Myers, plaintiffs’ allegation that they used the vehicle “substantially for personal use,” plausibly suggests that Road Runner transferred use and control of the vehicle to Myers for his personal use during at least certain periods of time. The court cannot rule out at the pleading stage that Myers qualifies as a “consumer” under the statute, and therefore declines to dismiss the Lemon Law claim on such grounds.

Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss denied.

Myers v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-755, Apr. 18, 2024. EDVA at Richmond (Novak). VLW 024-3-235. 17 pp.