Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery
ASHLEY BLAND, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A., INC. Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Trial Court Case No.
LAURENCE A. LASKY, Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants
TODD HOFFPAUIR, Atty. Reg. No. 0064449 and LINDSAY M. UPTON,
Atty. Reg. No. 0092309, 36 E. Seventh Street, Suite 2100,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee
1} Ashley Bland and Laurence Lasky appeal from the
trial court's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal of their
complaint against appellee Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
("Toyota Motor Sales").
2} In their sole assignment of error, Bland and
Lasky contend the trial court erred in concluding that their
complaint failed to state a breach-of-contract claim.
3} The record reflects that Bland filed a September
2017 complaint against Toyota Motor North America
("Toyota North America") related to excessive
consumption of oil by her 2009 Toyota Scion. Bland later
dismissed Toyota Motor North America and added Toyota Motor
Sales as a defendant. She also amended her complaint to add
Lasky, her father, as a plaintiff. (Doc. #9, 18, 23).
4} On November 3, 2017, Toyota Motor Sales moved to
dismiss the complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). (Doc. #24).
Toyota Motor Sales construed the complaint as pleading a
breach-of-warranty claim, which it alleged was barred on its
face by the applicable four-year statute of limitation and by
a lack of privity of contract. (Id.). Bland and
Lasky opposed the motion. Without addressing the
breach-of-warranty issue, they argued that the complaint pled
a claim for breach of implied contract, which had a six-year
statute of limitation, based on a "secret unannounced
recall." (Doc. # 25). In reply, Toyota Motor Sales
argued that the complaint failed to plead the elements of a
claim for breach of implied contract. (Doc. # 26).
5} In a December 15, 2017, decision, order, and
entry, the trial court agreed with Toyota Motor Sales. It
found the breach-of-warranty claim time barred on its face
and concluded that it also failed for other reasons. (Doc. #
27). With regard to the alleged breach of implied contract,
the trial court reasoned:
The Court now addresses the Plaintiffs' argument that
they sufficiently pleaded a breach of contract claim in the
Amended Complaint. As the Plaintiffs did not attach any
exhibit, the Court's review is limited to the four
corners of the Amended Complaint. * * *
Generally, a breach of contract action is pleaded by stating:
(1) the existence of a contract; (2) the performance by the
plaintiff of his or her obligations; (3) the breach by the
defendant; and (4) damages. * * *
Here, the Plaintiffs argue that Toyota made a promise to
replace the engine by recalling the vehicles, that Plaintiffs
accepted this offer, and that Toyota breached the promise.
However, in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs only allege the
11.After expressing concerns about the excessive oil
consumption, Plaintiff was finally told by a dealer
representative that Toyota was having problems with that
engine and that the Defendant Toyota Motor ...