Mazda Engine Defect Class Action Survives Partial Dismissal

On June 2, a U.S. federal judge trimmed a proposed putative engine defect class action lawsuit against Mazda Motor of America Inc., tossing plaintiffs’ claims of state consumer protection law violations and breach of implied warranties, though the court will allow breach of express warranty claims to proceed in this suit. The Mazda engine defect class action lawsuit alleges the automaker purposefully concealed a known engine valve defect in certain Mazda vehicles from consumers.

According to court reports, U.S. District Judge Freda L. Wolfson granted a majority of Mazda’s action to dismiss the engine defect class action lawsuit, which included five consumer fraud and warranty claims against Mazda stemming from the automaker’s announcement that some Mazda vehicles contained engines featuring faulty continuous variable valve timing assembles. This engine valve defect allegedly leads to partial or total engine failure.

Based on Judge Wolfson’s decision, three of the claims from the Mazda class action lawsuit were totally dismissed, while claims of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and breach of express warranties were only partially dismissed.

According to the judge’s June 2 order:

“Count 1, violation of the NJCFA, and Count 5, fraudulent concealment, are dismissed in their entirety without prejudice; Count 4, breach of implied warranty is dismissed in its entirety. In addition, Count 2, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and Count 3, breach of express warranty, are dismissed except with respect to Plaintiff’s claims resulting from the extended warranty on the VVT assembly.”

This Mazda engine defect class action lawsuit was originally filed in August of last year by lead plaintiff James Stevenson, who alleges he bought a 2008 Mazda CX-7 from a New Jersey car dealership back in 2009. According to his class action lawsuit, he claims that at the time he bought his vehicle the Mazda representative concealed facts about the engine valve defect. Stevenson further alleges that although the engine defect is covered under the Mazda vehicle warranty, Mazda allegedly refused to  repair the faulty continuous valve timing assemblies that eventually causes the engine’s timing chain to loosen and/or detach.

In response to these allegations, Mazda filed a motion to dismiss Stevenson’s engine defect class action lawsuit in November of last year, claiming that the automaker was not aware of the engine valve defect at the time the plaintiff bought his vehicle and that Stevenson has not provided evidence to the contrary. The automaker further states that five consumer reports concerning the alleged engine defect filed with the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration does not constitute solid proof that Mazda was aware of the defect.

In their motion to dismiss the Mazda engine defect class action lawsuit, the defendant argued that all of Stevenson’s warranty claims should be dismissed, as the plaintiff’s vehicle issues first occurred 3,500 miles after the Mazda warranty mileage limit. This fact, Mazda claims, refutes the plaintiff’s argument that when his car exhibited the engine-valve failure  in November 2013 that the automaker owed Stevenson coverage due to the warranty agreement.

In response to Mazda’s motion to dismiss the engine defect class action lawsuit, Judge Wolfson agreed with the car maker’s arguments and tossed all claims, save for those based on the extended warranty of the Mazda engine valve’s timing assembly.

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

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.