Facts

Meghan Decker filed a purported class action against Mazda Motor of America Inc. after Mazda denied her claims for repair costs under an extended warranty. She filed the action on behalf of similarly situated Mazda vehicle owners.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Decker owned a 2004 Mazda RX-8 vehicle. She contended that certain 2004-2008 RX-8 vehicles experienced a "crank no start" condition, making mechanical repairs necessary. Mazda extended the warranty period to cover the problem, which Mazda acknowledged happens after "driving the vehicle a short distance without engine reaching normal operating temperature." Decker contended that she was unable to start her vehicle on two occasions. She brought it to the repair shop, and requested Mazda reimburse her repair costs. However, Mazda denied her claim.

Decker sued Mazda for violating California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California's Unfair Business Practices Act. Decker also asserted causes of action for breach of express warranty, fraud, and for violating the Secret Warranty Law.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Mazda disputed whether Decker's problems were true "crank no start" incidents covered under the extended warranty, and moved to deny class certification, and for summary judgment. Mazda argued for the dismissal of the breach of warranty and Unfair Competition Law unfairness claims.

Result

The court granted in part Mazda's motion to deny class certification. As a result, only the breach of express warranty claim was allowed to continue. After much consideration, the court granted Mazda's summary judgment motion and dismissed Decker's breach of warranty and UCL unfairness claims.

Other Information

According to plaintiff, the broader issue was that in approximately 65,000 instances Mazda had allegedly granted warranty coverage for vehicle flooding covered under its extended warranty, but 37 percent of the time had not furnished the customer spark plugs as part of the repair, even though its own warranty mandates that this is the case. The court found that Decker may not be an adequate representative of the broader problem. Plaintiff asserted that Christina Paschal is representative of this broader issue since she had vehicle flooding covered under warranty but was denied reimbursement for spark plugs as part of the repair. Plaintiff's counsel intends to file a new lawsuit with this new class representative, since the court ruling, plaintiff contends, only applies to Decker.