Mazda Wants Engine Defect Class Action Tossed

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Mazda Motor of America Inc. wants a class action lawsuit alleging that it concealed a defect in the engine valve system tossed because the plaintiff has not sufficiently pled the claims.

The car company argued that the only claims that plaintiff James Stevenson has adequately pled are the warranty claims, since Mazda allegedly refused to repair his vehicle under a warranty.

“There is only one issue in this case: whether defendant Mazda Motor of America . . . was justified in denying Plaintiff James W. Stevenson’s warranty for an allegedly variable valve timing assembly . . . issue in his 2008 Mazda CX-7 vehicle because of plaintiff’s improper maintenance, lack of maintenance records, and sludge in his engine,” Mazda explained in its motion to dismiss the engine defect class action lawsuit.

However, all the other claims as well as the case for class certification lack sufficient details and evidence, especially the charge that Mazda was aware of the defect when Stevenson purchased the car.

Stevenson’s charges in the Mazda class action lawsuit includes a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and fraudulent concealment.

“Plaintiff fails to allege facts to satisfy the pleading requirements to establish any of these tangential claims,” the car company wrote.

Mazda concedes that Stevenson adequately plead the express warranty claims as well as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty claims, but that all “other warranty claims fail.”

Stevenson filed this Mazda class action lawsuit in August concerning his 2008 Mazda CX-7 that he purchased from a New Jersey Mazda dealership. The car came with a 36 month warranty, or 36,000 miles, as well as a Powertrain Warranty, which covered the car for 60 months, or 60,000 miles.

According to Mazda, the warranty manual that came with the vehicle says that damage that is caused by lack of maintenance as well as the use of wrong fuel, oil or lubricants will not be covered by either the new vehicle warranty or the powertrain warranty.

Stevenson claims that the alleged problem with the variable valve timing assembly didn’t begin until after the two warranties expired, and that Mazda refuses to repair the defect although the alleged defect was covered under the warranties.

According to Mazda, it was not aware of the defect when it sold the vehicle to Stevenson, and he has not sufficiently proven that it did know.

Stevenson cited five consumer complaints about the defect that were filed with the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, but Mazda says that this is not sufficient evidence because all the complaints did was prompt an investigation.

Stevenson started having problems when the car was beyond its warranties by 3,500 miles, which Mazda says refutes Stevenson’s claim that Mazda was supposed to cover the valve defect repair in November 2013, when it needed to be repaired.

Mazda wants the New Jersey federal judge to toss the consumer fraud, breach of implied warranty and fraudulent concealment allegations. The portions of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the breach of express warranty charges that allege Mazda promised its vehicles would be without defects should also be thrown out, it argues.

The lead plaintiff is represented by Mitchell Breit of Simmons Hanly Conroy, by T. Christopher Tuck of Richardson Patrick Westbrook & Brickman LLC and by Terry W. West and Bradley C. West of The West Law Firm.

Mazda is represented by Michael L. Mallow of Loeb & Loeb LLC.

The Mazda Engine Defect Class Action Lawsuit is Stevenson v. Mazda Motor of America Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv–05250, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.