Callahan v. Wallace

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that under Florida and Pennsylvania law plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a duty to disclose additional facts about the safety of vehicles
• dismissing a claim on the ground that the plaintiff had purchased his car from a third party
• collecting cases interpreting Florida law as applying the economic-loss doctrine to claims alleging that a vehicle did not work as promised
• “At the motion to dismiss stage, because Plaintiffs have alleged that Mazda made these incomplete statements, the Court finds Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged Mazda had a duty to disclose additional facts about the safety of its vehicles.”
• dismissing fraudulent concealment claims under the economic loss rule
• “Mazda raised three reasons to dismiss the implied warranty claim . . . Plaintiffs did not respond to any of them. Mazda argues, inter alia, that Vukadinovic lacked privity with Mazda, and thus, cannot maintain a claim for breach of implied warranty. The Court agrees.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).