Facts

On December 3, 2016, James Bettles purchased a new Toyota Pruis from a Toyota-authorized dealer. In the spring of the following year, he noticed a foul-odor emanating from the Prius's air-conditioning vents. Though he tried to troubleshoot possible causes, by summer of that year, the odor became more persistent and worse. Six months after he purchased the Prius, he brought the car to the dealership for service and told them about the odor as well as his attempts to eliminate it. After the service, the dealership told him there were no abnormalities and nothing wrong with the HVAC (air-conditioning and heating) system. But in the following months, Bettles noticed the smell would intensify when switching from A/C mode to regular fan mode, and was immediately noticeable on a cold start. On September 22, 2021, Bettles filed suit against Toyota Motor Corporation, the parent company of Toyota Motor Sales. After Toyota moved to dismiss, Bettles voluntarily dismissed two of his claims, and the court found the rest time-barred. The court, however, allowed Bettles leave to amend and Bettles then amended to assert a class action complaint for violations of several consumer laws.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that when he brought the car to the dealership in December 2017 in regards to the odor, the dealership's supervisor told him there had been thousands of similar complaints regarding smells from these types of vehicles. He then further alleged that defendant knew of the defect in the HVAC system, but chose to conceal it. Finally, plaintiff sought to toll the statute of limitations by using the discovery rule and fraudulent concealment doctrine.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions and specifically as to the statute of limitations issues, argued that plaintiff's claims were time-barred and failed to allege an applicable tolling doctrine.

Result

Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice.