Luxury car company Porsche Cars North America, Inc.’s motion to dismiss a class action involving alleged mechanical defects was granted in part in the Southern District of Florida on March 26.
U.S. District Judge Federico A. Moreno ruled on Santiago Padilla and Murray L. Shames’ case, which they filed on behalf of themselves and others in their situation. They accused Porsche of knowingly selling cars with safety issues for more than 10 years. They raised concern about a coolant leak that could make the engine overheat or even fail, causing a serious car crash. While their first lawsuit was dismissed because the four-year statute of limitations had run out, they were granted leave to update their fraudulent concealment claims. Porsche responded with a motion to dismiss, which was granted in part.
Judge Moreno first addressed the plaintiffs’ claims that Porsche violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). Because the claim was said to be outside of the statute of limitations as they filed the lawsuit more than four years after purchasing their cars, the plaintiffs had to provide enough proof that the limitation was tolled. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to do this.
“The fraudulent concealment allegations are still not alleged with sufficient particularity under Rule 9(b),” Judge Moreno said.
The plaintiffs presented broad statements, and not any actual statements or documents that Porsche allegedly made that coerced them.
“Second, the plaintiffs’ allegations show that they discovered, or could have discovered, the factual basis for their FDUTPA claim long before the statute of limitations expired,” Judge Moreno added as he granted the motion to dismiss for fraudulent concealment, and subsequently the plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief.
Plaintiffs were also given another chance to amend the fraudulent concealment complaint without specific allegations. If they don’t follow through, Judge Moreno said the case would be dismissed with prejudice.