Court: District Court, C.D. California; October 18, 2016; Federal District Court
Maserati North America, Inc. faced a lawsuit from plaintiff Mohamed Elsayed regarding a defect in the remote keyless entry system of its 2014-2016 Ghibli models, alleging life-threatening issues. Elsayed sought to represent a nationwide class with claims including violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express and implied warranties, and various product liability claims, along with specific claims for California residents under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and California’s Unfair Business Practices Act. The court considered Maserati's motion for summary judgment, which was granted. The background details the Passive Entry System (PES) of the Ghibli, designed to unlock the vehicle automatically to prevent key fob lock-ins. An incident occurred when Elsayed’s wife, after placing her key fob and phone in the car, inadvertently locked herself and their child inside. After attempts to unlock the vehicle, she contacted Maserati and a dealership, receiving mixed responses about the vehicle's design and functionality. Ultimately, the dealership and Maserati maintained that the car operated as intended, leading to Elsayed's dissatisfaction and subsequent lawsuit.
The plaintiff asserts that the Passive Entry System (PES) should have unlocked the vehicle, and its failure to do so indicates a defect. This claim relies on various materials, including the 2015 and 2016 Ghibli eBrochures, the Ghibli Owner’s Manual, the Quick Reference Guide, and the vehicle warranty card. The 2015 eBrochure highlights Maserati's commitment to safety, emphasizing features like the airbag system and crumple structure but does not mention the PES. The 2016 eBrochure is similar but elaborates on vehicle features, categorizing the key fob under "Comfort and Functionality" rather than "Safety."
The Ghibli Owner’s Manual states that warnings and notes are marked for easy identification and includes a section on preventing the accidental locking of the key fob inside the vehicle. It describes an automatic unlock feature of the PES, which activates if the ignition is off and a valid key fob is detected inside the vehicle while no valid key fobs are outside. The manual specifies conditions under which the doors will unlock, including when the vehicle is manually locked using the door lock knob if a valid key fob is inside. It includes images and directions for unlocking the car, focusing on the functionality of the interior door panel lock knob.
The manual outlines conditions under which the vehicle doors will not unlock, including locking via the key fob, using the button on the Passive Entry front door handles, proximity of a valid key fob within 5 feet, and multiple failed attempts to lock the doors using the door panel switch. Passive Entry front door handles are defined as the exterior handles for opening the vehicle. The manual describes the door locking mechanisms, indicating the presence of power door lock and unlock switches on the front door trim panels, supported by images highlighting these switches. It also notes that doors can be locked using the inner door panel lock button.
Three critical warnings are emphasized: operators should not leave the key fob near the vehicle to prevent unintended operation by children, all key fobs are updated to ensure proper functioning, and the Maserati Roadside Assistance program provides lockout services. The Quick Reference Guide (QRG) serves as a summary to aid drivers in utilizing vehicle functions and encourages reading the owner's manual for comprehensive understanding. It includes references to centralized door locking switches on each door's trim panel, illustrated with directional images. Additionally, the Ghibli warranty card guarantees the vehicle against defects in materials and workmanship for four years under normal use.
Summary judgment can be granted by the Court for any claim or defense if there is no genuine dispute regarding any material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, as per Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden to demonstrate the absence of genuine material fact issues. A "genuine" issue exists when sufficient evidence could lead a reasonable trier of fact to favor the nonmovant. A "material" fact is one that could influence the case's outcome based on applicable law. Irrelevant factual disputes will not be considered.
To meet their burden, the moving party may either negate an essential element of the opposing party's claim or demonstrate the absence of evidence supporting the nonmoving party's case. Once this initial burden is met, the nonmovant must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial, supported by materials in the record or by demonstrating the inadequacy of the movant’s evidence. The opposing party may challenge the admissibility of the evidence cited by the movant but must provide substantial evidence beyond mere speculation.
In ruling on a summary judgment motion, the court reviews all evidence in favor of the nonmoving party and does not assess credibility or weigh conflicting evidence. Conclusory statements or speculative testimony cannot create triable issues. All evidence must be admissible, and if the court denies full relief requested, it may issue an order recognizing undisputed material facts.
Plaintiff's claims center on the functionality of the Ghibli's Passive Entry System (PES) under specific conditions: doors closed, ignition off, a key fob inside, no key fob outside, and the rear door trim panel lock button pressed. The ten causes of action include breaches of express warranties, negligent design, failure to warn, violations of implied warranties, and infringements of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition laws, all of which were dismissed by the court.
For express warranty claims, which include violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and two breach of express warranty claims, the court found no breach by Maserati. The owner's manual stipulates that the PES unlocks the car under a set of conditions, including that at least one door must be open when the lock button is pressed. The plaintiff's scenario, where the lock button was pressed after all doors were closed, does not meet these criteria. Furthermore, the court clarified that a note in the manual does not imply that any single condition listed is sufficient for the PES to operate independently. The plaintiff's interpretation conflates the exterior and interior lock mechanisms, leading to a misunderstanding of the manual's provisions. Thus, the statements regarding the PES and the exterior button do not establish any express warranty related to the internal lock button's function.
Plaintiff contends that Maserati’s statement in its eBrochure regarding prioritizing passive safety in the Ghibli constitutes an express warranty for the Passive Entry System (PES). However, this claim is incorrect, as the PES does not relate to passive safety, which in automotive terms refers to features designed to protect occupants during collisions, such as airbags and seat belts. Regulatory standards, such as 49 C.F.R. 571.208, outline the requirements for passive safety systems, including options for airbags or automatic seatbelts for vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1989.
The comprehensive occupant protection system must include effective safety belts, a robust vehicle structure, and integrity to prevent injuries during accidents. The Ghibli materials do not suggest a different interpretation of passive safety and do not reference the PES in that context. Although Plaintiff cites Maserati’s warranty covering defective parts, he fails to demonstrate any deviation in PES operation from the manual's claims. The warranty specifically addresses defects in material or workmanship rather than design defects, which are not applicable in this case.
Plaintiff's assertion of a manufacturing defect hinges on the notion that the product deviated from its intended result or from similar products. However, he does not allege that his Ghibli differs from Maserati's design or that the PES operates differently than other properly manufactured PES units. Instead, he aims to certify a nationwide class of Ghibli owners, which indicates that the alleged issue is a design defect, rendering Maserati’s warranty inapplicable.
Plaintiff claims Maserati breached a warranty regarding the key fob functionality, asserting that the vehicle’s manual guarantees the key fob will never be locked inside the car. The argument highlights that a child can lock the vehicle while the engine is off and the key fob is inside, constituting a breach of warranty due to the vehicle's failure to perform as represented. The manual states that safety features aim to minimize the risk of locking the key fob inside, but it does not guarantee that such locking will never occur. Additionally, the Plaintiff argues that Maserati’s claim of "state of the art engineering" should constitute an express warranty. However, the court deems these statements as non-actionable puffery, lacking specificity and measurable criteria necessary to establish an express warranty. Consequently, Maserati did not provide any express warranty covering the incident of the Plaintiff's son locking himself in the vehicle. Therefore, Maserati is entitled to summary judgment on all claims of breach of express warranty.
Plaintiff's fifth and sixth causes of action against Maserati involve negligence claims for products liability concerning negligent design and failure to warn. These claims are constrained by the economic loss doctrine, which limits recovery to physical injuries, disallowing compensation for purely economic losses. The doctrine permits exceptions for personal injury, physical property damage, a special relationship between parties, or other common law exceptions. However, Plaintiff has not provided evidence of any injury beyond economic loss, as indicated in the complaint. Plaintiff alleges financial losses due to Maserati's failure to disclose defects in the Ghibli’s Passive Entry System, asserting that they would not have purchased or would have paid less for the vehicles. While Plaintiff vaguely references emotional distress resulting from a perceived threat to his family’s safety, he fails to substantiate this claim with evidence. The argument for emotional distress as a personal injury exception to the economic loss doctrine is rejected, as it requires a viable tort claim, which has not been established. Thus, without personal injury, recovery for economic loss is barred, and claims must demonstrate a tortious breach independent of contract principles.
The economic loss doctrine aims to maintain a distinct separation between contract law and tort law, preventing tort damages from being awarded in contract cases unless there is a direct physical injury. A tortious breach of contract can occur if the breach is linked to a traditional common law tort. In this case, the plaintiff cannot claim emotional distress damages as he was not present during the incident that caused distress to his wife, Ms. Hazem. For a plaintiff to recover damages for emotional distress, three criteria must be met: (1) a close relationship to the victim, (2) presence at the injury event while being aware of it, and (3) experiencing emotional distress beyond what an impartial witness would feel. The plaintiff's argument for a "special relationship" with Maserati, which he believes exempts him from the economic loss doctrine, is misguided. The special relationship exception is intended to establish circumstances where a duty of care exists to prevent economic losses to third parties. Relevant case law indicates that special relationships are narrowly defined, as illustrated by cases involving contractors and beneficiaries. Thus, the absence of such a relationship with Maserati limits recovery for purely economic losses.
Plaintiff maintains a direct relationship with Maserati, rather than a third-party status. The Court declines to apply the special relationship exception to direct relationships, citing the six-factor test from J’Aire Corp. v. Gregory, which establishes criteria for recognizing such a relationship. The first, second, and fourth factors generally support finding a special relationship between contracting parties, which contradicts the narrow nature of the exception to the economic loss doctrine. The latter is further clarified by the fifth and sixth factors, which emphasize the relevance of third-party harms. Plaintiff argues foreseeability of harm based on the vehicle's intended use; however, the Court finds this argument insufficient. A special relationship allowing recovery for economic loss typically exists when a manufacturer is aware that a product is intended for a specific consumer and use. Since Maserati did not design the Ghibli with Plaintiff's unique circumstances in mind, foreseeability of harm cannot be established. Therefore, the Plaintiff's negligence claims are barred by the economic loss doctrine, and Maserati is granted summary judgment on these claims.
Four causes of action raised by the Plaintiff rely on the existence and breach of implied warranties: (1) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (2) breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; (3) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability for a nationwide class; and (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability for a California subclass. The Plaintiff contends that the vehicle's PES feature, which can inadvertently trap children inside, renders the Ghibli unfit for safe transportation. However, the court finds that the Ghibli’s design, which mitigates one method of children locking themselves in, does not constitute a breach of implied warranties. The court emphasizes that instances cited in prior cases involved extreme vehicle malfunctions rather than the features of the Ghibli, which remains roadworthy. Since the Plaintiff’s warranty claims do not hold, the claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act also fails. Consequently, the court grants Maserati’s motion for summary judgment on the implied warranty claims. Additionally, the Plaintiff's claims under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law are noted but not explicitly detailed in the summary.
The court grants summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) as they hinge on Maserati's alleged affirmative misrepresentations. The plaintiff specifically cites three misrepresentations regarding safety features: (1) the existence of features to prevent key locking in the vehicle, (2) Maserati prioritizing passive safety in the Ghibli design, and (3) assurances that a toddler cannot lock the vehicle doors despite evidence to the contrary. The court finds no affirmative misrepresentations, clarifying that the Passive Entry System (PES) is unrelated to passive safety, the owner’s manual does not misrepresent the PES's functionality, and the PES does not entirely prevent key fob locking. The plaintiff's claims based on omissions also fail, as Maserati adequately disclosed the PES's functionality and warned against leaving the key fob near the vehicle. The plaintiff argues that Maserati's conduct violates the UCL's prohibitions on misleading practices; however, the court concludes there were no misleading disclosures or omissions. Furthermore, the court notes that to establish an "unfair" business practice under the UCL, the plaintiff must meet certain criteria, which have not been satisfied in this case, as there is no clear violation of public policy or evidence of unethical practices by Maserati.
Public policy necessitates that any action must be linked to specific constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions. An act is deemed unfair if it results in substantial consumer injury that is not counterbalanced by benefits to consumers or competition, and which consumers could not reasonably have avoided. In this case, the limited functionality of the Power Exit System (PES) allows consumers to lock their car doors even with a key fob inside, providing significant benefits such as safety and security, which outweighs the minimal risk of a child locking themselves in the vehicle. The court ruled in favor of Maserati’s motion for summary judgment due to the plaintiff's failure to provide adequate evidence supporting his claims, highlighting that unverified allegations in the complaint do not constitute evidence. The plaintiff's objections to certain undisputed facts were found to be immaterial, and his claims regarding missing documents were countered by Maserati’s provision of those documents. The court noted that the plaintiff did not substantiate his claims effectively, leading to the conclusion that Maserati's summary judgment should be granted.
The Court will consider the warranty card only insofar as it matches the allegations made by the Plaintiff in the First Amended Complaint (FAC). Although the Plaintiff contests Maserati's claims regarding the Ghibli brochure's availability online, he does not dispute the content of the eBrochure, which contains statements aligned with his FAC. The Court determines that the existence of the eBrochure on Maserati’s website does not affect the resolution of the motion since the Plaintiff accepts the substantive claims within the eBrochure.
There is a noted discrepancy between the Plaintiff’s submitted copy of the manual, which includes a second picture, and Maserati’s version, which does not. The Plaintiff references a page discussing the “Child-Protection Door Lock System,” which prevents rear doors from being opened from inside when engaged, but does not argue its relevance in his briefing. Therefore, the Court finds this reference unnecessary for evaluating his claims of breach of express or implied warranties.
Additionally, the manual contains conflicting descriptions regarding the lock mechanisms, but these inconsistencies are deemed immaterial. The Court interprets that both the lock knob and the door trim panel button are part of a list of conditions that must be satisfied to prevent the vehicle's Passive Entry System (PES) from unlocking. The Court dismisses the Plaintiff's potential alternate interpretation as implausible.
The Plaintiff seems to suggest a separate claim regarding the defectiveness of the rear door trim panel lock button's ability to secure the vehicle, but he has not provided evidence to support this assertion. Since the Plaintiff's claim mainly relies on the PES functionality, the Court will not address this unsupported allegation. Moreover, the Plaintiff hints at a violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) but neglects to explicitly state the necessary predicate violations. Consequently, as the Plaintiff's claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) fail, the UCL claim also fails.
