Opinion
No. C13-2822 TEH
11-06-2013
EAST BAY LAW, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR CO., Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
DISMISS
This matter came before the Court on October 21, 2013, on Defendant's motion to dismiss. Having considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, the Court now GRANTS Defendant's motion for the reasons set forth below.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff East Bay Law ("Plaintiff") alleges that Defendant Ford Motor Co. ("Ford") represented in its marketing brochures that the 2013 Ford Taurus contains an upgrade option for a voice-activated navigation system with a secure digital memory card ("SD card") for maps (the "navigation upgrade"), but in fact none of the vehicles include this feature. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 9. Plaintiff includes as Exhibit A to the complaint, a copy of the 2013 Ford Taurus marketing brochure which lists under "Available Options," a "Voice-activated Navigation System with SD card for map and POI storage." Id., Ex. A. The brochure notes that this option also requires the purchase of either a 201A or 202A Equipment Group package. Id.
On March 13, 2013, Plaintiff purchased a 2013 Ford Taurus SEL equipped with the Equipment Group 201A package. Id. ¶ 4, Ex. A. The Equipment Group 201A package includes a "voice-activated, in-vehicle connectivity system;" two LCD color displays; an LCD touch screen; and an SD card reader. Id. On March 29, 2013, Plaintiff returned to the same dealership and purchased an SD card containing roadmaps that it intended to use for navigation. Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff attempted to use the SD card with the SD card reader in its vehicle, but discovered the navigation feature would not work in the vehicle. Id. When Plaintiff took the vehicle to the dealership's service department, it learned that the navigation feature would not work because the vehicle did not have the navigation upgrade. Id. It then inquired with Ford directly and was again told that the navigation upgrade was not installed on its vehicle and allegedly was also told that the upgrade "could not be made to work at all on any 2013 Ford Taurus SEL model." Id. ¶ 8.
Based on the above, Plaintiff alleges that it should have received a navigation upgrade but did not, and that contrary to the descriptions contained in Ford's marketing brochures, the 2013 Ford Taurus SEL model does not include a navigation upgrade. Id. ¶ 9. Pursuant to California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17200 et seq. ("UCL"), it seeks injunctive relief in the form of a recall of all 2013 Ford Taurus SEL vehicles.
Ford moves to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Specifically, Ford argues that Plaintiff has not pled a cognizable harm as it only alleges that it purchased the requisite equipment package for the upgrade, not that it purchased the navigation upgrade itself; and that in fact Plaintiff did not purchase the upgrade at all. Moreover, Ford contends that Plaintiff fails to allege any independent cause of action, and therefore cannot pursue a claim under the UCL.
LEGAL STANDARD
Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) when a plaintiff's allegations fail "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court must "accept all material allegations of fact as true and construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the non-moving party." Vasquez v. Los Angeles Cnty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007).
A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal "can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "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." Id.
When ruling on a motion to dismiss, courts are generally limited to only those allegations contained within the complaint, however, they may consider exhibits submitted with the complaint. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n. 19 (9th Cir. 1989). A court may also consider documents which are "incorporated by reference," that is documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint, or whose contents are necessary to the complaint, and whose authenticity no party questions. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges that the 2013 Ford Taurus SEL model carries an "upgrade option" for a voice-activated navigation system with an SD card for maps. Compl. ¶ 6. The Ford marketing brochure Plaintiff attaches as Exhibit A to its complaint similarly lists the voice-activated navigation system as an "[a]vailable [o]ption" that also requires the additional purchase of one of two specific equipment group packages, 201A or 202A. Id., Ex. A. Plaintiff alleges that it purchased the Equipment Group 201A package - one of the required equipment packages for the navigation upgrade. Id. ¶ 7. Nowhere in its complaint, however, does Plaintiff claim that it purchased the actual navigation upgrade at issue in this case.
Plaintiff does not rebut Ford's argument that it did not purchase the navigation upgrade. Rather, Plaintiff argues that because it purchased the requisite equipment package, which includes an SD card reader, it should be able to simply purchase an SD card of maps and insert it into the reader in order to have a fully functional navigation feature. Pl. Opp. at 2-3. Ford's brochure, however, states that either Equipment Group 201A or 202A is required for the navigation upgrade, not that those equipment groups are all that is necessary for the upgrade. Compl., Ex. A. Plaintiff also submits as Exhibit B, a photograph of the navigation screen from its vehicle to support its argument that the vehicle should have a navigation feature. Pl. Opp., Ex. B. The image merely confirms that Plaintiff purchased the equipment necessary for the navigation upgrade, namely the LCD screen included in Equipment Group 201A, not that Plaintiff purchased the navigation upgrade itself. At argument, Plaintiff contended that it had purchased all the necessary equipment for an upgrade and therefore it should have had the upgrade; again, it did not claim that it had selected and paid for the actual upgrade itself.
As Plaintiff fails to allege that it actually purchased the very item it claims it did not receive, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief. Although the absence of such an allegation is sufficient to dismiss the complaint, the Court nevertheless also considers Ford's additional argument that Plaintiff did not in fact purchase the upgrade.
Along with its motion to dismiss, Ford submitted an invoice reflecting Plaintiff's purchase of the 2013 Ford Taurus SEL at issue here. Def. Opp. Br., Ex. 1. Although the general rule is that when deciding a motion to dismiss, courts must disregard facts that are not within complaint or attached thereto, courts may take into account documents "whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the [plaintiff's] pleading." In re Silicon Graphics Inc. Sec. Litig., 183 F.3d 970, 986 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) abrogated on other grounds by South Ferry LP, No. 2 v. Killinger, 542 F.3d 776, 784 (9th Cir. 2008). Courts have also applied this doctrine, known as "incorporation by reference," to situations in which the plaintiff's claim "depends on the contents of a document . . . even though the plaintiff does not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint." Knievel, 393 F.3d at 1076 (holding that district court properly considered defendant's submissions of images of entire internet website in evaluating motion to dismiss slander suit premised on a single photograph and caption on that website) (citing Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that where plaintiff's claims involved his health insurance plan, the district court properly considered documents attached to a motion to dismiss that described the terms of the health insurance plan)).
As Plaintiff's claims necessarily depend on whether it purchased the navigation upgrade it alleges it did not receive, and Plaintiff does not dispute the authenticity of the invoice, the Court relies on the incorporation by reference doctrine to review the invoice submitted by Ford. The invoice shows that Plaintiff's vehicle included the requisite equipment package, Equipment Group 201A, and that the only other optional upgrade Plaintiff selected was leather seating. The invoice makes no mention of Plaintiff having purchased the navigation upgrade.
As Plaintiff has failed to allege that it purchased the navigation upgrade which it claims it was not given, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief and Plaintiff's complaint is thus dismissed. Moreover, the dismissal is with prejudice because the invoice shows that Plaintiff did not purchase the upgrade, therefore Plaintiff cannot amend the complaint to cure the deficiency. See Thinket Ink Info. Res., Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 368 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that dismissal without leave to amend is improper, unless it is clear that the complaint cannot be cured by amendment). Because Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed on these grounds, the Court declines to address Ford's arguments regarding the UCL pleading requirements.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT