Mazda Buyers Fight Motion to Dismiss Faulty Clutch Class Action

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 car buyers are fighting a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit that accuses the car manufacturer of selling vehicles with faulty clutches.

Plaintiffs Gregory Schaaf and Heather Weeter, respective residents of North Carolina and Florida, allege Mazda knowingly sold 2010 to 2015 Mazda 3 manual transmission vehicles with defective parts.

These defective parts cause the clutch disc and flywheel, parts of the clutch assembly, to “fail prematurely,” according to the Mazda class action lawsuit.

Mazda passed along the costs of correcting the problem back to the buyer, stating that the only thing they can do is to replace the entire clutch assembly, the lawsuit states. According to the plaintiffs, fixing the defect requires spending thousands of dollars.

The plaintiffs asked a California federal judge last week to deny Mazda’s motion to dismiss warranty breach claims in the case.

According to the plaintiffs, Schaaf “properly pleads a claim under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.” The plaintiffs told a California federal judge that they can attest to this as Mazda failed to inform Schaaf of the defective products and concealed that information.

“Schaaf alleges Mazda failed to disclose a latent defect of which it had exclusive knowledge, and that but for its omission he would not have purchased a class vehicle,” the Mazda buyers claim.

In the plaintiffs’ opposition to Mazda’s motion to dismiss the case, they contend that “Schaaf’s breach of implied warranty claim is timely.” The plaintiffs allege this is because, “Mazda’s efforts to repair his vehicle tolled the limitations period.” Court documents state that because Mazda tried to “remedy its breach of warranty” by fixing the defective products in the vehicle, the applicable limitations period tolled through a period of four years after the service date.

Mazda had also argued a lack of privity, or a relation between two parties that is recognized by law, to account for dismissal of the case. However, the State of North Carolina allows or recognizes a “third-party beneficiary exception to the privity requirement,” the plaintiffs allege.

The Mazda buyers further state that a sales contract does exist between Mazda and its authorized dealers. And because of that contract, it gives “rise to an implied warranty of merchantability.” Such “agreements and any warranties flowing therefrom,” are put forth to protect customers and consumers alike from any unreasonable losses apprehended or gained by a purchase, the plaintiffs claim.

The plaintiffs also contend that because Mazda intentionally concealed and failed to disclose a latent defect pertaining to Weeter’s vehicle, that it invariably tolls any “applicable statute of limitations.” As such, Weeter’s Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim is timely, the plaintiffs’ motion states.

The Mazda owners are represented by Richard D. McCune and David C. Wright of McCuneWright LLP and Bryan Clobes and Daniel Herrera of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP.

The Mazda Faulty Clutch Class Action Lawsuit is Gonzalez, et al. v. Mazda Motor Corp., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02087-MMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.