United States District Court, D. Oregon
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. MCSHANE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
filed a complaint against Defendant KIA Motors America
alleging violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the
Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act, The complaint also alleges that KIA was
negligent. Defendant KIA moves under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to
dismiss Plaintiff's claims with regards to the FTCA, ADA,
and negligent claims. Defendant also moves to dismiss the
remaining Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
reasons stated below, Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF
No. 9) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED
purchased a new 2011 KIA Sorento vehicle with a “Slap
Shift” automatic transmission. Compl. ¶ 7.
Plaintiff's new vehicle was covered by a 10 year or 100,
000 mile warranty. Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff began to
experience issues with this Sorento's cruise control, the
driver's outside door handle, the climate control knobs
and emergency button, and the transmission. Plaintiff
reported these issues to “KIA Dealerships on or before
expiry of KIA's 100, 000 mile and 10 year
warranty.” Id. ¶s 7, 10, 12.
the mileage on Plaintiff's Sorento exceeded 100, 000
miles, Plaintiff sent two demand letters to KIA Motors
America. Id. ¶ 9. The first demand letter,
dated September 7, 2017, states: “The model year for my
Sorento is 2011. The mileage is about 103, 500. With less
mileage, the full warranty would be valid to the year 2021;
approximately another 3 1/2 years.” Id. Ex. 1.
Both demand letters report that Plaintiff communicated with
‘KIA customer service representative
“Heather” regarding [his] Sorento' and that
he would like a phone call response. See id.
Ex.'s 1 & 2. KIA did not respond to either demand
letter. Compl. ¶ 11. Plaintiff alleges that KIA
representative “Heather” called his home on
October 31, 2017, at 5:30 a.m. leaving a voicemail message
inquiring about his Sorento. Id. ¶ 13.
has advanced osteoarthritis, left-sided hemiplegia, and left
and right knee implant prosthetics. Id. ¶3.
survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter that
“state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face when
the factual allegations allow the court to infer the
defendant's liability based on the alleged conduct.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). The
factual allegations must present more than “the mere
possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 678.
considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all
allegations of material fact as true and construe them in the
light most favorable to the non-movant. Burgert v.
Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust, 200 F.3d 661, 663
(9th Cir. 2000). However, the Court is “not bound to
accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265,
286 (1986). If the complaint is dismissed, leave to amend
should be granted unless the court “determines that the
pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of
other facts.” Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d
494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations and internal quotation
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
first claim for relief alleges violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warrant Act. Compl. ¶s 32-43. For this
court to have jurisdiction over a Magnuson-Moss claim, the
amount in controversy must meet or exceed $50, 000, exclusive
of costs and interests. See 15 U.S.C. §
2310(d)(3)(B). To determine the amount in controversy, the
court looks to the pleadings. Kelly v. Fleetwood
Enterprises, Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1037-38 (9th Cir.
2004) (“If it ‘appear[s] to a legal certainty
that the claim' cannot meet the statutory threshold, the
suit should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”);
see also Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d
1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff's prayer seeks compensatory damages of $29,
734.32 and economic damages of $5, 125. See Compl.
Because the combined damages sought of $34, 859.32, exclusive
of punitive damages, is below the $50, 000 jurisdictional
threshold under 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)(B), this court
lacks original jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim for