United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division
G. CARR SR. U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
a consumer case.
Sandra Gangluff alleges that defendant Kasper Toyota Scion
(Kasper) sold her a car at an inflated price and that Kasper
has similarly overcharged other customers. She further claims
that Kasper and defendants National Warranty Administration
Network, LLC and National Automotive Experts, LLC
(collectively, National) breached National's lifetime
warranty, which Kasper sold with her car.
brings individual and class claims against Kasper under
Ohio's consumer protection laws, Ohio Rev. Code.
§§ 1345.01, et seq. She raises individual
claims against Kasper for fraud and against all defendants
for common-law breach of warranty and federal statutory
breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15
U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.
originally filed her complaint in the Erie County, Ohio Court
of Common Pleas. (See Doc. 1-1). Defendants removed
the complaint to this court. (See Doc 1).
is Gangluff's motion to remand. (Doc. 6). For the reasons
that follow, I grant the motion.
about April 7, 2014, Gangluff bought a used 2011 Toyota
Corolla from Kasper. (Doc. 1-1 at 6, ¶¶ 18, 20,
22). She paid $22, 000, which, she claims, is $4, 825 over
the manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP) and $8,
400 over the National Automobile Dealers Association's
“clean retail value” for a similar vehicle
“in clean, good condition.” (Id. at 6,
car came with National's “Warranty Forever!”
lifetime warranty. (Doc. 1-1 at 7, ¶¶ 27, 31). She
claims that Kasper told her that the car's purchase price
included the warranty, but Kasper nonetheless charged her
“for what should have been optional features, MVP
Direct Maintenance ($662.00) and Gap Insurance ($650.00),
which made the warranty anything but free.”
(Id. at ¶¶ 27-28).
the warranty, Gangluff was to have her car serviced at Kasper
or “a pre-authorized repair facility[.]” (Doc.
1-1 at 7, ¶ 31 (citing warranty website) (internal
quotations omitted)). She alleges, however, that Kasper
“[o]ften . . . could not provide” her an oil
change appointment, “resulting in a delay of service[,
]” and, eventually, the car's transmission failed.
(Id. at 7, ¶¶ 34, 36). According to
Gangluff, “[d]efendants refused to honor the warranty
without justification.” (Id. at 7, ¶ 37).
after the transmission failure, “Gangluff was involved
in an accident, resulting in a total loss of the” car.
(Doc. 1-1 at 8, ¶ 38). But the gap insurance she
purchased - which, she submits, should have ensured she bore
no costs resulting from the accident - “did not cover
the loss[, ]” so she “pa[id] the balance owed[,
]” which was “more than the [car] was
worth.” (Id. at 11, ¶ 40).
February 5, 2019, Gangluff filed her “class action
complaint” in the Erie County, Ohio Court of Common
Pleas. (See Doc. 1-1). Defendants removed the case
on March 8, 2019. (Doc. 1).