United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Friedberg sued Maserati North America, Inc. after he leased a
Maserati vehicle that had significant defects. Friedberg
brought several claims against Maserati, including one under
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA). Maserati moves to
dismiss the MMWA claim. For the reasons discussed below, the
motion is denied.
April 2017, Michael Friedberg leased a new Maserati vehicle
from F.C. Kerbeck & Sons, a New Jersey car dealer.
(Compl. ¶ 8.) According to Friedberg, the dealer issued
him several warranties outlined in a warranty booklet.
(Id. ¶ 7.)
after he leased the car, Friedberg noticed significant
problems with it, including an oil leak, a defective rear
differential, and various other defects. (Id.
¶¶ 8-9.) He had the car repaired multiple times,
but the issues remained. (Id. ¶¶ 11-12.)
Naturally, the defects have limited Friedberg's ability
to use the car. (Id. ¶ 6.)
of the defects, Friedberg sued Maserati, alleging, among
other things, a violation of the MMWA. Maserati now moves to
dismiss Friedberg's MMWA claim.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a
district court must accept all well-pleaded allegations as
true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
non-moving party. See Bd. of Trs. of Bricklayers &
Allied Craftsmen Local 6 of N.J. Welfare Fund v. Wettlin
Assocs., 237 F.3d 270, 272 (3d Cir. 2001). To survive a
motion to dismiss, a complaint must allege “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). Although the federal rules do not impose a
probability requirement at the pleading stage, a plaintiff
must present “enough facts to raise a reasonable
expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the
necessary element[s]” of a cause of action.
Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234
(3d Cir. 2008). “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). If the court can only
infer “the mere possibility of misconduct, ” the
complaint must be dismissed because it has failed to show
that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Fowler v. UPMC
Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009).
argues that Friedberg's MMWA claim should be dismissed
because the MMWA only protects consumers who purchased a
vehicle, not those who, like Friedberg, leased. The Court
outset, the Court notes that although the Complaint alleges
that Friedberg purchased a car from Maserati, the parties now
agree that he leased it. (Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss at 1-2;
Pl.'s Resp. at 2.) Thus, the Court decides the motion to
dismiss based on the fact that Friedberg is a lessee.
question, then, is whether Friedberg, as a lessee, has a
right to sue Maserati under the MMWA. The statute provides a
cause of action to “a consumer who is damaged by the
failure of a . . . warrantor” to comply with a written
or implied warranty. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d). The statute
defines “consumer” in three ways:
 a buyer (other than for purposes of resale) of any
 any person to whom such product is transferred during the
duration of an implied or written warranty (or service