Ouzounian v. FCA US LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 STEVE OUZOUNIAN, an No. 2:20-cv-00179-JAM-KJN individual, 13 Plaintiff, 14 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S v. MOTION TO DISMISS 15 FCA US LLC, a Delaware 16 Limited Liability Company and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 This matter is before the Court on FCA US LLC’s 20 (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss. Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”), ECF 21 No. 25. Steve Ouzounian (“Plaintiff”) filed an opposition to 22 Defendant’s motion, Opp’n, ECF No. 27, to which Defendant 23 replied, Reply, ECF No. 28. The Court presumes the parties are 24 familiar with the events leading up to this motion, as they were 25 described in the Court’s previously issued Order. See Order, 26 ECF No. 21. They will not be repeated here. After 27 consideration of the parties’ briefing on the motion and 28 relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to 1 Dismiss.1 2 3 I. OPINION 4 A. Legal Standard 5 A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the complaint as not 6 alleging sufficient facts to state a claim for relief. “To 7 survive a motion to dismiss [under 12(b)(6)], a complaint must 8 contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a 9 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. 10 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (internal quotation marks and 11 citation omitted). While “detailed factual allegations” are 12 unnecessary, the complaint must allege more than “[t]hreadbare 13 recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 14 conclusory statements.” Id. at 678. “In sum, for a complaint 15 to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory ‘factual 16 content,’ and reasonable inferences from that content, must be 17 plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to 18 relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 19 2009). 20 B. Analysis 21 Plaintiff’s second and third causes of action request that 22 the Court find Defendant strictly liable for design and 23 manufacturing defects. See Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) 24 ¶¶ 24–37. Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s conduct, with regard to 25 those defects, was “fraudulent, malicious[,] and oppressive” and 26 27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 28 for September 15, 2020. 1 “justif[ies] an award of punitive damages pursuant to California 2 Civil Code § 3294.” SAC ¶¶ 30, 37. As described in more depth 3 in the Court’s June 16, 2020, Order, a claim for punitive 4 damages must set forth the elements as stated in the general 5 punitive damage statute, California Civil Code § 3294. Turman 6 v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc., 191 Cal.App.4th 7 53, 63 (2010). These statutory elements include allegations 8 that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or 9 malice. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). 10 Importantly, “[s]omething more than the mere commission of 11 a tort is always required for punitive damages. Taylor v. 12 Superior Court, 24 Cal.3d 890, 894 (1979)(citing Prosser, Law of 13 Torts at 9–10 (4th Ed. 1971)). And “[t]he mere allegation an 14 intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an 15 award of punitive damages.” Grieves v. Superior Court, 157 16 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 (1984) (citing Taylor, 24 Cal.3d at 894). 17 Plaintiff, in his SAC, has again failed to allege facts that 18 support a finding of the oppression, fraud, or malice necessary 19 for a punitive damages award. As before, the facts presented 20 suggest only that Defendant negligently failed to: (1) inform 21 Plaintiff of the recall; and (2) instruct its authorized dealers 22 to inform customers of the recall. See SAC ¶¶ 12, 13, 15, 18. 23 These facts fall short of rendering plausible Plaintiff’s claim 24 that Defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice. 25 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s 26 claims for punitive damages included in his second and third 27 causes of action. 28 /// WAS EAINTOING IN RUUD OU PIR Ie OT AY OT Tt 1 Il. ORDER 2 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS 3 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: September 10, 2020 Lh Ion 7 teiren staves odermacr 7008 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28