Peterson
Peterson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Carter, J.
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO STRIKE [34] AND MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION [32]
Julie Barrera, Courtroom Clerk.
Before the Court are Defendant’s Motion to Strike Marketing, Advertising, and Warranty Allegations and Exhibits in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (“Motion to Strike”) (Dkt. 34) and Motion to Dismiss First and Third Causes of Action (“Motion to Dismiss”) (Dkt. 32). The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 78; L.R. 7-15. After reviewing the moving and opposing papers and the reply, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant’s Motion to Strike and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
I. BACKGROUND
The Court draws the following facts from the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Dkt. 30). Many of the allegations are essentially the same as in the original complaint.
A. Mazda
Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (“Mazda”) promotes, markets, manufactures, and distributes vehicles in interstate commerce. FAC ¶ 10. As part of its vehicle designs, Mazda features variable valve timing (WT) assemblies on several of its…