Johnson v. Nissan North America, Inc.

Good Law
272 F. Supp. 3d 1168
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 29, 2017Case No. 17-cv-00517-WHOCalifornia8,881 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Williamorrick, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs allege that the panoramic sunroofs installed in the Nissan vehicles they purchased spontaneously explode and that Nissan refuses to repair, replace, or otherwise compensate plaintiffs with respect to these explosions. They assert a host of claims on behalf of themselves and a California, New York, and nationwide class against defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan), which now moves to dismiss all claims. 1 Although plaintiffs do not have *1172 standing to bring a nationwide class and do not plausibly allege an implied warranty claim under California state law, on all other issues I deny Nissan’s motion.

BACKGROUND

Nissan manufactures, markets, and distributes automobiles in the United States. First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶21 [Dkt No. 32]. Since at least 2008, Nissan has offered vehicles with an optional upgrade of a factory-installed panoramic sunroof. Id. ¶23, The vehicles with factory-installed panoramic sunroofs at issue in this litigation are Rogue, Maxima, Sentra, Pathfinder, and Altima models from 2008 to the present; Murano models from 2009 to the present; and Juke models from…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.