Catalano v. Marinemax

690 F.Supp.3d 123

David CATALANO and Joanne Catalano, Plaintiffs, v. MARINEMAX; MarineMax Northeast LLC; Brunswick Corp.;SeaRay Boats; and Mercury Marine, Defendants.

20-CV-04134 (DG) (LGD)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

Signed September 5, 2023

Anthony J. Gallo, AJ Gallo Associates, PC, Woodbury, NY, for Plaintiffs.

David Scott Rutherford, Rutherford & Christie, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

DIANE GUJARATI, United States District Judge:

On September 3, 2020, Plaintiffs David Catalano and Joanne Catalano (collectively, "Plaintiffs") commenced this action against Defendants MarineMax, MarineMax Northeast LLC, Brunswick Corp., SeaRay Boats, and Mercury Marine (collectively, "Defendants"), asserting seven causes of action: violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.; breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranty; violation of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.; violation of New York General Business Law § 349; violation of New York General Business Law § 198-D; and breach of contract. See generally Complaint ("Compl."), ECF No. 1.

On July 12, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, in which Defendants sought dismissal of Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See ECF No. 23. By Memorandum & Order dated March 10, 2022 (the "March 10, 2022 Order"), the Court granted Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissed the claims in the Complaint without prejudice, and afforded Plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint. See generally Catalano v. MarineMax (Catalano I), 590 F. Supp. 3d 487 (E.D.N.Y. 2022).

Familiarity with the March 10, 2022 Order is assumed herein.

On April 11, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, asserting six causes of action: violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.; breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranty; violation of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.; violation of New York General Business Law § 349; and breach of contract. See generally Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl."), ECF No. 33.

Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 12(b)(6)"). See Notice of Motion, ECF No. 44; Declaration of David S. Rutherford in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Second Rutherford Declaration"), ECF No. 45;¹ Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Defs.' Br."), ECF No. 46; Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Defs.' Reply"), ECF No. 49. Plaintiffs oppose Defendants' motion. See Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Pls.' Br."), ECF No. 48.

For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted and the Amended Complaint is dismissed.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

Although the Amended Complaint adds various allegations, the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint do not materially differ from those alleged in the initial Complaint as relevant here. Compare Compl. with Am. Compl. The Court incorporates by reference herein the detailed factual background set forth in the March 10, 2022 Order. See Catalano I, 590 F. Supp. 3d at 496-500.²

As discussed in the March 10, 2022 Order, on or about August 19, 2014, Plaintiffs purchased a 2014 Sea Ray 300 SLX, HIN SERV2227A414 (the "vessel") from MarineMax Northeast LLC. The vessel was sold as new. After the vessel's purchase, Plaintiffs experienced certain issues with the vessel, many of which Defendants did not adequately rectify, and on or about July 19, 2019, Plaintiffs traded in the vessel at a substantial loss. Also as discussed in the March 10, 2022 Order, there existed certain agreements relevant to the vessel's purchase, including (1) a contract for the purchase and sale of the vessel, entered into by Plaintiffs and MarineMax and MarineMax Northeast LLC (together, the "MarineMax Defendants") (the "Purchase Agreement"); (2) an extended 6-year warranty issued by Brunswick Corp. (the "Limited Warranty");³ and (3) a Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement entered into by Plaintiffs and MarineMax Northeast LLC (the "Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement").⁴

The Amended Complaint adds to the allegations contained in the initial Complaint allegations regarding the nature of certain Defendants' businesses. See, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶ 3 (alleging that MarineMax "is in the business of marketing, distributing and selling watercraft to the general public"); ¶ 4 (alleging that MarineMax Northeast LLC "is in the business of marketing, distributing and selling watercraft to the general public"); ¶ 6 (alleging that SeaRay Boats "is the manufacturer and marketer of the subject vessel"); ¶ 7 (alleging that Mercury Marine is "the manufacturer of the engines incorporated in to the subject vessel"); see also ¶ 37 (alleging that "Defendants . . . are experts nationally and internationally in the field of vessel manufacturing, assembly, and testing").

The Amended Complaint also adds allegations regarding certain representations made to Plaintiffs about the vessel and its financing, as well as regarding Plaintiffs' reliance on those representations. See, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶ 14 ("The particular vessel was recommend [sic] by MarineMax's salesperson, Ju[st]ine Stellin, as Plaintiffs made clear that they were looking for a reliable and quick pleasure boat."); ¶ 17 ("While the relevant purchase agreement stated that the vessel was purchased 'as is', it was represented to Plaintiffs by the MarineMax salesperson that the vessel was 'brand new', and met Plaintiff's requirements of being a reliable and quick pleasure boat."); ¶ 19 (alleging that "in concluding the purchase of the subject vessel," Plaintiffs relied on "representations made by Defendants' sales person and staff that Plaintiffs were purchasing a brand-new vessel that, upon information and belief, had been delivered directly from the manufacturer, and at no point had any ownership or use by any other third party, and that the subject vessel was fit for the use it was intended for"); ¶ 24 ("[T]he vessel's Manufacturer's Statement of Origin, NYS DMV Boat Registration, Plaintiff's Bill of Sale, Sales Agreement, Extended Service Contract sold to Plaintiffs by the MarineMax salesperson all indicated that the vessel purchased was sold as 'new.' "); ¶ 84 ("Justine Stellin, a sales representative employed at the time in question by Defendant MarineMax Northeast, arranged for financing of the initial purchase of the subject vessel on behalf of Plaintiffs"); ¶ 85 ("Ms. Stellin informed Plaintiffs, on or about the date of purchase, that they were approved for and would receive a 10-year loan with no prepayment penalty. Plaintiffs relied on these representations in executing the finance documents and concluding the purchase transaction."); ¶ 86 ("Plaintiffs made it clear to said defendant that they would not accept financing for a term longer than ten (10) years as so doing would negatively impact the vessel's future value and cause them to pay more interest unnecessarily, and relied on said Defendant to ensure that the applicable paperwork reflected said terms.").⁵

In addition, the Amended Complaint adds allegations regarding the condition of the vessel and the issues Plaintiffs experienced with the vessel after its purchase. See, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶ 21 (alleging that the vessel "was delivered from the dealership's stock directly to Plaintiff, and there were no intermediary parts or after-market parts added"); ¶ 22 (alleging that "at delivery, the vessel was in the same condition, with the same parts and operations as it was when it left the manufacturer's custody and held out to the general public as being a 'brand new' vessel fir [sic] for its intended use"); ¶ 29 (alleging that Plaintiffs' issues with the vessel were "documented by, inter alia, Defendant Sea Ray's service records," and specifying dates and issues); ¶ 40 ("As reflected in the Defendants' service records of the vessel, Plaintiffs' complaints to Defendants were repetitive in nature and concerned reoccurring and persisting problems with engine over-heating, poor engine performance, trim and sensor malfunctions, and the like."); ¶ 30 (alleging that "Plaintiff contacted Defendants Sea Ray and MarineMax to report these issues speaking with Dawn Scarpinato, Michelle, Byrd, and Daniel Koch, among others"); ¶ 44 ("Due to the failures of the vessel as enumerated herein and the inability of the warranty service providers to make such adequate repairs, Plaintiffs submits [sic] that the vessel they purchased was sold to them with, inter alia, manufacturer's defects, in that the vessel, and its components, that Plaintiffs purchased was distinctly different from, and deviated from the manufacturer's ordinary condition of vessels placed into the stream of commerce for sale."); ¶ 32 (alleging that "upon information and belief, the Mercury Marine engines with which the vessel was equipped were known tin [sic] the industry and by Defendants to be inherently plagued by poor engine performance and malfunctions stemming from the installation of catalytic converters").

Further, the Amended Complaint adds allegations regarding Defendants' marketing of their products and the vessel and regarding Plaintiffs' reliance on such marketing. See, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶ 47 (alleging that Defendants "held out the vessel, including its engines and components, to the general public via various marketing materials and campaigns as safe and reliable"); ¶ 63 ("Defendants held out to the general public, via marketing materials and otherwise, that their products, and indeed the vessel itself, was a reliable pleasure craft suitable and safe for its normal and customary use, when in fact, this, upon information and belief, is not the case."); ¶ 79 (alleging that "P...