Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wotring Towing v. Ford Motor Co.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

May 31, 2017

WOTRING TOWING, Plaintiff,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

          Terence P. Kemp Magistrate Judge

          OPINION AND ORDER

          EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 8] filed by Defendant Cummins Inc. ("Cummins"). For the following reasons, that Motion is GRANTED.

         I.

         Plaintiff Wotring Towing has sued Cummins and Ford Motor Company ("Ford") for (1) breach of express and implied warranty and (2) breach of contract. (Compl. at 1-4 [ECF No. 4].) These claims stem from a vehicle purchase. Plaintiff alleges that it purchased a new 2011 Ford 650SC Rollback, VIN 3FNX6FC9BV453231, (the "Vehicle") for commercial use from Speedway Wrecker Sales ("Speedway") for $80, 000. (Id. ¶¶ 1-2.)[1] The Vehicle's engine was allegedly made by Defendant Cummins. (Id. ¶ 1.)

         Plaintiff alleges that the newly-purchased Vehicle had numerous problems that rendered it inoperable. (Compl. ¶ 5.) Some of these problems persist, Plaintiff asserts, despite multiple repair attempts. (Id. ¶ 6.)

         In connection with its purchase of the Vehicle, Plaintiff was allegedly "given an express limited warranty, which contains limited remedies." (Compl. ¶ 3.) As evidence of the warranty, Plaintiff has attached a copy of a 2011 Ford Warranty Guide to its Complaint. (See id.; Warranty at PagelD 68 [ECF No. 4].) Plaintiff alleges, however, that the warranty and its remedies have "failed their essential purposes as a result of the inability of Defendant to correct certain defects and malfunctions in the Vehicle." (Compl. ¶ 3.)

         Because Plaintiff purportedly received a written limited warranty, Plaintiff alleges that the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose also apply to the Vehicle. (Compl. ¶ 4.)

         Plaintiff originally filed this case in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. (See Notice of Removal at 1 [ECF No. 1].) Cummins removed the case to this Court on December 22, 2016, and then moved to dismiss on January 19, 2017. (See id.; Mot to Dismiss at 1 [ECF No. 8].) On February 9, 2017, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to file its response. (Mot. for Extension at 1 [ECF No. 9].) The United States Magistrate Judge denied that motion without prejudice due to Plaintiffs failure to indicate its compliance with Local Civil Rule 7.3. (Feb. 10, 2017 Order at 1 [ECF No. 10].) Plaintiff has not attempted to refile its Motion for Extension. Nor has Plaintiff otherwise attempted to file a response in opposition to Cummins's Motion to Dismiss.

         II.

         Cummins moves to dismiss each of Plaintiff s claims. (See Mot. to Dismiss at 3 [ECF No. 8].) According to Cummins, Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts to raise a plausible claim to relief, (See id.)

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal of actions that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Such an action will be dismissed where "there is no law to support the claims made" or where "the facts alleged are insufficient to state a claim." Stew Farm, Ltd. v. Natural Res. Conservation Serv,, No. 2:12-cv-299, 2013 WL 4517825, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 26, 2013) (citing Rauch v. Day & Night Mfg. Corp., 576 F.2d 697, 702 (6th Cir. 1978)). To state a claim, a pleading must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); see also BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). To meet this standard, a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint will not "suffice if it tenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of further factual enhancement'" or "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is "a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679.

         When considering a motion to dismiss, a court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Grindstaff v. Green, 133 F.3d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1998).

         A. Breach of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.