Falco
Falco v. Nissan North America Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Pregerson, J.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS UNDER RULES 12(b)(2) AND 12(b)(6) [Dkt. Nos. 99,100]
Presently before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint as to Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. (“NML”), one for lack of personal jurisdiction and one for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. Nos. 99, 100.) Having heard oral arguments and considered the parties’ submissions, the Court adopts the following order.
*1057 I. BACKGROUND
The Court has already set out the background facts of this case in its order of October 10, 2013, and they remain largely the same. Briefly, the named Plaintiffs purchased four Nissan vehicles between 2005 and 2007 that shared in common a particular kind of timing chain system, which they allege was prone to failure and put consumers at risk. Falco v. Nissan N. Am. Inc., No. CY 13-00686 DDP MANX, 2013 WL 5575065 , at *1-2 (C.D.Cal. Oct. 10, 2013). They bring this action under various California and Washington consumer protection statutes on behalf of themselves and others similar situated. (Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) at 1.)
NML is the parent company of Nissan North America (“NNA”), which sells Nissan products in the United States. (Id.…