Judge Puts Brakes on Mazda RX-8 Engine Defect Class Action Lawsuit

While a group of sports car owners may have had issues with a warranty, a federal judge has ruled that the lead plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts in a Mazda RX-8 engine defect class action lawsuit for it to survive dismissal.

In the original Mazda class action lawsuit complaint, Christina Paschal says that she purchased a 2008 Mazda RX-8 second hand and had an engine failure the next year. Due to known issues with the engine, she was able to get it repaired for free which included the replacement of spark plugs that were damaged by fuel leakage. However, U.S. District Judge Andrew J. Guilford was not swayed by her claims that when she needed further repairs that the Japanese automaker had not done its duty.

He noted that the warranty extension provides that a “Mazda dealer will make necessary repairs … to correct any problem covered by this warranty without charge to you.” Paschal had admitted that the first time she took her Mazda RX-8 she had no problems with the repair of the vehicle, but asserted that the company had violated state law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act by failing to replace the spark plugs.

Judge Guilford, in reading the warranty extension, wrote that he was unable to find any specific language that necessitated the replacement of those parts, even though the engine defect was known to damage them. Instead, relying on the testimony of a dealership manager, he found that the service bulletin only provided for “necessary repairs” and that Paschal’s car had continued to run without issue after it did so.

A second claim that Paschal had brought regarding the battery in the first amended complaint with the assistance of her class action lawsuit lawyer revolved around the battery that she says should have been replaced at he same time her spark plugs were as a technician testified that a flooded engine can require massive amounts of electricity to try and start, thus draining the battery.

Even with that, the order for summary judgment noted that the technician did not explain why, “when that occurs, the battery cannot be recharged once the engine is deflooded. Nor does he explain the significance of a “load test,” which the technician actually examining the vehicle used to diagnose the battery. Forbes also failed to review the maintenance history of the vehicle, and he failed to consider alternative explanations for the state of the battery, such as its age.”

The plaintiffs are represented by class action lawsuit lawyers Stephen M. Harris of Knapp Petersen & Clark and Robert L. Starr.

The Mazda RX-8 Engine Defect Class Action Lawsuit is Christina Paschal v. Mazda Motor of America Inc., Case No. 14-cv-00594, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.