 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Coker v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.8/16/2005
ockin Chrysler minivans and/or the difference in value between minivans with the brake shift interlock device and those without it.
Count II seeks damages for "Common Law Fraud."
The briefs to this Court, the order, and the transcript all refer to defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and accompanying memoranda to the trial court, but no such motion appears in the record on appeal. The only pleading which includes any such motions is the Answer, which lists some twenty-four defenses, only a few of which appear to relate to any of the issues before us. They are:
FIRST DEFENSE
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted...
FIFTEENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff's tort claims and those of the putative class members are barred by the economic loss doctrine...
NINETEENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff's have not complied and cannot comply, with all prerequisites for maintaining a claim under the N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-1.1, et seq...
TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE
Some or all of the claims of plaintiffs and members of the putative class may be preempted by federal law and regulation.
In the prayer for relief, defendant seeks a "judgment in its favor dismissing Plaintiff's . . . Complaint." The first specific mention of standing appears in the oral arguments before the trial court.
First, I do not agree with the majority's statement of the standard of review and the issues. It is well established that upon review of a dismissal on the pleadings, this Court is to review the pleadings (here, the complaint and answer) in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, to determine whether plaintiffs have alleged any legal theory under which they could prevail. "In ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must determine whether, taking all allegations in the complaint as true, relief may be granted under any recognized legal theory." Coley v. Champion Home Builders Co., et al., 162 N.C. App. 163, 166, 590 S.E.2d 20, 22, disc. review denied, 358 N.C. 542, 599 S.E.2d 41 (2004) (emphasis in original).
Instead of conducting this review, the majority, citing Parrish v. Bryant, asserts that because part of plaintiffs' argument differs from the theory "upon which case was tried" in the trial court, those matters are not properly before us. 237 N.C. 256, 259, 74 S.E.2d 726, 728 (1953). Since the case has not been tried at all, I believe that this analysis is misplaced. Rather, as to each of plaintiffs' claims, our task is to determine whether plaintiffs have set forth a legal theory under which they could prevail. As the plaintiffs' two claims require separate analysis, they are discussed in turn.
First, plaintiffs have set forth a statutory claim under Chapter 75, alleging that defendants have engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in or affecting commerce. The majority uphold the dismissal of this claim, applying common law principles of standing. However, since this is a statutory claim, I conclude that such analysis is inappropriate, and the proper analysis requires determining whether plaintiffs have alleged a basis for the claim as created by the statute. Essentially, plaintiffs contend that the defendants advertised their minivans as the safest in the world, when they knew that they were not, and that plaintiffs purchased the van based on these representations, resulting in damages. The pertinent statutory provisions of the UDTPA are:
(a) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|