Full opinion text
OPINION AND ORDER GREGORY L. FROST, District Judge. This matter is before the Court for consideration of Porsche Cars North America, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Master Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 62), Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Porsche Cars North America, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Master Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 77), and Porsche Cars North America, Inc.’s Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss the Master Consolidated Amendment Class Action Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 91). For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to dismiss. I. Background The plaintiffs in this products liability action are purchasers of Porsche Cayenne, Cayenne GTS, Cayenne S, Cayenne Turbo, or Cayenne Turbo S sport utility vehicles of the model years 2003-2010 (“Cayenne”). Defendants are Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (“PCNA”) and the German company Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche Aktiengellschaft (“Porsche AG”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Porsche AG manufactured the Cayenne and PCNA is the exclusive importer of Cayenne vehicles in the United States. On May 24, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“the Panel”) consolidated four related product liability actions involving the Cayenne (arising from California, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio) in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. (ECF No. 1.) The Panel subsequently transferred four related actions from Florida, Georgia, California, and Texas to this Court. (ECF Nos. 3, 4, 11.) On August 25, 2011, the plaintiffs in these eight actions, along with several new individual plaintiffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) with this Court alleging defects in the Cayenne’s cooling system. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiffs brought the Complaint on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of similarly situated Cayenne owners and lessees and proposed sub-classes of similarly situated Cayenne owners and lessees in California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Washington. Each individual plaintiff asserts that he or she purchased a Cayenne that came equipped with plastic coolant tubes. Plaintiffs assert that such tubes cracked, leaked, or otherwise failed and that, in some cases, the tubes leaked and caused damage to other parts of the engine. When Plaintiffs attempted to repair or replace the coolant tubes, they allegedly learned that Porsche did not offer replacement plastic tubes but instead offered an “OEM update kit” that contained aluminum coolant pipes and cost “at least $1,500 to $8,600 per vehicle” to purchase and install. (Id. ¶ 69.) . Plaintiffs allege that Defendants defectively designed the Cayenne by equipping it with plastic coolant tubes instead of aluminum pipes. Plaintiffs argue that the Cayenne’s coolant system is defective because coolant tubes are exposed to extreme heat and that, as a result of such exposure, coolant tubes made of plastic will crack and degrade. Plaintiffs add that “most high-end performance vehicles with powerful engines use aluminum pipes to transport the coolant” and that the “extent of wear and tear on the Cayenne’s plastic valley coolant tubes is entirely disproportionate to the age of these vehicles.” (Id. ¶ 68(b).) Plaintiffs also allege that the use of plastic coolant tubes “implicates serious safety concerns.” (Id. ¶ 70.) Plaintiffs assert that Defendants knew, reasonably should have known, or were reckless in not knowing about the coolant tube defect but failed to disclose the defect to consumers. Defendants allegedly had or should have had this knowledge “based on, among other things, widespread customer complaints of prematurely cracking coolant tubes, dealer inquiries, repair shop inquiries, dealer-provided repair data, the high volume of replacement parts being ordered, and [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration] complaints.” (Id. ¶ 63.) Plaintiffs assert that, despite this alleged knowledge, Defendants promoted the Cayenne’s cooling system and made misrepresentations such as “ ‘[t]he entire cooling system is specifically designed for prolonged heavy-duty operation.’ ” (Id. ¶ 62(c).) Plaintiffs also attach to their Complaint a technical bulletin that PCNA issued in February 2008 stating that “[o]n [Model Year] 2003 to [Model Year] 2006 vehicles there is a chance that the coolant pipes made from plastic may start to leak.... Both coolant pipes (lower and heater) must be replaced at the same times with new coolant pipes made from aluminum” as evidence that Defendants acknowledged the defect. (ECF No. 35-1.) Plaintiffs note that, despite acknowledging the defect, Defendants have not reimbursed Cayenne owners for the cost of replacement parts or issued any type of recall. Plaintiffs plead a total of thirty-two claims for relief against Defendants, including one federal statutory claim and thirty-one state statutory and common law claims. Plaintiffs seek economic damages, an order enjoining Defendants from “continuing the unfair business practices alleged in this Complaint,” and injunctive relief “in the form of a recall or free replacement program.” (ECF No. 35, at 79.) Plaintiffs do not claim any damages for bodily injury that the alleged coolant tube defect may have caused. PCNA filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on January 6, 2012. (ECF No. 62.) That same day, Porsche AG filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) (ECF No. 63) and a second motion to dismiss adopting PCNA’s Rule 12(b)(6) arguments (ECF No. 64). The Court is holding Porsche AG’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion in abeyance until it decides the personal jurisdiction issue regarding Porsche AG. (ECF No. 67.) Thus, the Court now considers only PCNA’s motion to dismiss. II. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper if a complaint fails to state a claim upon which a court can grant relief. Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must provide fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, and it must set forth sufficient factual allegations suggesting that the plaintiff is entitled to relief under those claims. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). A court, in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and treat all well-pleaded allegations contained therein as true. Id. at 555-56, 127 S.Ct. 1955. The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief. Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir.2007). Rule 8(a)(2) governs pleading standards and requires that a complaint contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Although Rule 8 does not require “detailed factual allegations,” “it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Thus, a court need not “accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986)). A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” will not suffice to defeat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Id. In fact, “a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Once the court has identified the well-pleaded-allegations, it should view each allegation in the context of the entire complaint to determine whether a plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support his or her claim. See In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., 799 F.Supp.2d 777, 782 (N.D.Ohio 2011). Considering only those well-pleaded facts, a complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is hable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955). A plaintiffs factual allegations must be enough to raise the claimed right to relief above the speculative level and to create a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence to support the claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955. If the “well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” the court should dismiss the complaint. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Claims of fraud are subject to heightened pleading requirements. Fed. R.Civ.P. 9(b) (“In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, or other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.”). To satisfy Rule 9(b), a plaintiff must “allege the time, place, and content of the alleged misrepresentation on which he or she relied; the fraudulent scheme; the fraudulent intent of the defendants; and the injury resulting from the fraud.” Bennett v. MIS Corp., 607 F.3d 1076, 1100 (6th Cir.2010). The rule requires that the circumstances of the fraud, and not the evidence of the case, be pleaded with particularity. Michaels Bldg. Co. v. Ameritrust Co., N.A., 848 F.2d 674, 680 n. 9 (6th Cir.1988). Rule 9(b) may be relaxed when there has been a lack of discovery and the information needed for a plaintiff to achieve particularity is held exclusively by the opposing party — in other words, Rule 9(b) does not require a plaintiff to be omniscient. Id. The main purpose behind Rule 9(b) is to provide the defendant with notice of the plaintiffs claim so that the defendant may prepare an informed responsive pleading. Id. at 679; Coffey v. Foamex, L.P., 2 F.3d 157, 162 (6th Cir.1993). In interpreting federal law, a transferee court in a multidistrict case should look to the law of its own circuit rather than the law of the transferor courts’ circuits. In re Nat’l Century Fin. Enters., Inc., Inv. Litig., 323 F.Supp.2d 861, 876-77 (S.D.Ohio 2004) (citing In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983, 829 F.2d 1171, 1176 (D.C.Cir.1987)); In re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 00-1898, 2005 WL 106936, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2005). Thus, although the parties have cited cases from various circuits discussing Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirements, the Court will analyze federal procedural law in accordance with Sixth Circuit precedent. The Court must decide substantive questions of state law “in accordance with the controlling decisions of the highest court of the state.” Meridian Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kellman, 197 F.3d 1178, 1181 (6th Cir.1999) (citing Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938)). If the state’s highest court has not decided the issue, the Court must predict how that court would resolve it by considering decisions of the state’s lower courts, other federal courts construing state law, secondary sources, and applicable dicta of the state’s highest court. Id.; see also Welsh v. Wachovia Corp., 191 Fed.Appx. 345, 355-56 (6th Cir.2006). A court should not disregard the decisions of intermediate appellate state courts unless it is convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise. West v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 311 U.S. 223, 237, 61 S.Ct. 179, 85 L.Ed. 139 (1940) (stating that, when an intermediate appellate state court “rests its considered judgment upon the rule of law which it announces,” such a rule is “datum for ascertaining state law which is not to be disregarded by a federal court unless it is convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise”); Meridian Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d at 1181. III. Facts A. Four-Year/50,000 Mile Warranty PCNA attached to its motion to dismiss four written “Warranty and Customer Information” packets from the years 2003-2006 (“Warranties”) that Plaintiffs did not attach to their Complaint. Each Warranty provides the following coverage: [PCNA] will repair or replace with a new or remanufactured part distributed by [PCNA], at its sole option, any factory-installed part that is defective in material or workmanship under normal use. (Normal vehicle use is described in this Booklet.) Warranty repairs will be made free of charge for parts and labor at an authorized Porsche automobile dealer .... (ECF No. 62-1, at 7; 62-3, at 7; 62-5, at 6; 62-7, at 7.) Warranty coverage lasts for “four years, or 50,000 miles, whichever comes first” (“Warranty Period”). (Id.) The Warranties also state that “[a]ny implied warranties, including the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, are limited to the duration of the written warranty.” (Id.) The Court will consider the Warranties as part of the Complaint without converting PCNA’s motion to a summary judgement motion. The Sixth Circuit has stated that in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court may consider exhibits attached to the defendant’s motion to dismiss if they are referenced in the complaint and are central to the claims contained therein. Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir.2008); see also Greenberg v. Life Ins. Co. of Va., 177 F.3d 507, 514 (6th Cir.1999) (allowing a defendant to submit and the court to consider a document that was not attached to the complaint but that was “central to the plaintiffs claim”). The Complaint references the 2003 Warranty and later states that “[Defendants] made written and implied warranties regarding its Porsche Cayennes.” (ECF No. 35 ¶¶ 218, 247.) Plaintiffs argue that they sufficiently identified the Warranties in their Complaint. (ECF No. 77, at 28.) Because Plaintiffs refer to the Warranties and because the Warranties are undoubtedly central to this products liability action, the Court will consider the Warranties as part of the Complaint. See, e.g., Perko v. Ford Motor Co., No 10-514, 2011 WL 1769098, at *2 (NJD.Ohio May 9, 2011) (in a product liability action, considering a warranty that the defendants attached to their motion to dismiss as part of the complaint). B. Claims The Court begins by identifying those well-pleaded facts that are common to all twenty Plaintiffs. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Many of the thirty-two claims turn on what PCNA allegedly knew — and what it allegedly represented — and when. The Court will therefore examine the factual support surrounding these allegations and isolate the well-pleaded facts on which the Court may rely in analyzing Plaintiffs’ claims. One of Plaintiffs’ overarching allegations is that PCNA knew or was reckless in not knowing of the alleged defect and that it concealed this knowledge from consumers. To support this allegation, Plaintiffs allege that PCNA received “many complaints from Cayenne owners and lessees concerning failure of the tubes since the U.S. commercial launch of the Cayenne in 2003,” “had access to aggregate data from [their] dealers regarding the coolant tubes,” “had access to pre- and post-release testing data,” and “had access to complaints made to [them and their] dealers regarding the coolant tubes.” (ECF No. 35 ¶¶ 59, 61.) Plaintiffs also allege that “most high-end performance vehicles with powerful engines use aluminum pipes to transport the coolant,” that “[a]luminum pipes have been proven to withstand the extreme temperatures of the cooling system,” and that the “combination of (a) the tube placement relative to the engine and (b) use of plastic composite material to carry the coolant[] virtually guarantees that the plastic coolant tubes [PCNA] used in [its] Cayennes will prematurely fracture and fail.” (Id. ¶¶ 46, 53). The Court finds that these factual allegations are sufficient to assume that PCNA had knowledge of the alleged coolant tube defect at all times relevant. PCNA argues that Plaintiffs fail to allege “which defendant knew of the supposed defect, when each learned of it, or how each responded” and “when the decision to conceal the defect was made, who made it, where it occurred, and where it was implemented.” (ECF No. 62, at 31; No. 91, at 51.) But Rule 9(b) provides that “knowledge[ ] and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 9(b). Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that both PCNA and Porsche AG played a role in manufacturing, marketing, and selling the vehicles and that, at the time the vehicles were manufactured and warranted, both PCNA and Porsche AG knew or should have known of the defect due to the mechanics of the design and pre-release testing data. (ECF No. 35 ¶¶ 33-34.) Plaintiffs allege that PCNA received complaints, dealer inquiries, and post-release testing data that would have further informed them of the defect. In 2008, PCNA allegedly issued a technical bulletin confirming this knowledge. The Court finds that these facts are sufficient to provide PCNA fair notice of the allegation that it knew of the alleged defect at all times relevant. See Michaels Bldg. Co., 848 F.2d at 680. The specific “when the decision to conceal the defect was made, who made it, where it occurred, and where it was implemented” are facts that, if they exist, are likely within PCNA’s control and are best addressed after the close of discovery. See id. The Court will therefore assume, for purposes of this analysis, that PCNA knew of the alleged defect at the time it sold the vehicles. Whether this knowledge is actionable will depend on the law underlying the thirty-two claims for relief. The Court next examines Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding affirmative misrepresentations. Plaintiffs provide seven specific statements that Defendants allegedly made “in [their] brochures and other marketing material” regarding the Cayenne’s cooling system. (ECF No. 35 ¶ 62.) The Court will assume for purposes of this motion that Defendants made these statements; however, Plaintiffs’ claim that these specific representations “had the likely effect of misleading the public, including Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class” is a conclusory statement that is not entitled to a presumption of truth. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Plaintiffs do not identify which Defendant made the alleged statements or the time or place at which the statements were made. Nor do Plaintiffs allege the time or place at which the marketing materials containing said statements were distributed or made available. Without more, Plaintiffs fail to plead the circumstances surrounding PCNA’s affirmative misrepresentations with the particularity that Rule 9(b) requires. See Bennett, 607 F.3d at 1100; see also Cataldo v. U.S. Steel Corp., 676 F.3d 542, 551 (6th Cir.2012) (finding that the plaintiff failed to satisfy Rule 9(b) where his allegation “omit[ted] entirely the time and place of the alleged statements” and referred only to “defendants” despite the fact that there were several defendants in the case); Culy Constr. & Excavating, Inc. v. Laney Di rectional Drilling Co., No. 2:12-cv-4, 2012 WL 2071804, at *6-7 (S.D.Ohio June 8, 2012). Against this backdrop, the Court considers Plaintiffs’ claims. IV. Discussion A. NATIONWIDE CLASS Plaintiffs bring their first claim for relief on behalf of a purported nationwide class, defined as all current and former owners or lessees of a 2003-2010 model year Cayenne. On behalf of this class, Plaintiffs allege that PCNA violated the MagnusonMoss Federal Warranty Act (“MagnusonMoss” or “Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., and that Plaintiffs sustained damages as a result. PCNA moves to dismiss this claim in its entirety. Count One: Magnuson-Moss Act Magnuson-Moss provides a civil claim for relief for consumers who are damaged by a supplier or warrantor’s failure to comply with its obligations under a written or implied warranty or under the Act in issuing such a warranty. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1). In order to state a claim under the Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (i) the item at issue was subject to a warranty; (ii) the item did not conform to the warranty; (iii) the seller was given reasonable opportunity to cure any defects; and (iv) the seller failed to cure the defects within a reasonable time or a reasonable number of attempts. Temple v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 133 Fed.Appx. 254, 268 (6th Cir.2005). 1. Written Warranty Plaintiffs appear to concede that no individual plaintiff has a valid claim for breach of express warranty. PCNA asserts, and the Complaint corroborates, that “no plaintiff claims to have had any problems with his or her coolant pipes until after the applicable warranty term expired.” (ECF No. 62, at 12.) Plaintiffs do not contest this assertion. Without more, Plaintiffs fail to allege an actionable breach of express warranty claim. They therefore cannot advance a Magnuson-Moss claim premised on this theory. Temple, 133 Fed.Appx. at 268. Similarly unsuccessful is Plaintiffs’ attempt to “reserve their express warranty claims under Magnuson-Moss for those [currently unnamed] class members whose express warranties may have not yet expired.” (ECF No. 77, at 28.) Plaintiffs offer no authority that would allow them to “reserve” such claims and the Court is not aware of any such authority. The Sixth Circuit has stated that “[i]f it is found, prior to class certification, that the named plaintiffs’ individual claims are without merit, then dismissal is proper.” J & R Mktg., SEP v. Gen. Motors Corp., 549 F.3d 384, 390 (6th Cir.2008). See also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 357, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (“[N]amed plaintiffs who represent a class must allege and show that they personally have been injured, not that injury has been suffered by other, unidentified members of the class to which they belong and which they purport to represent.”). Because Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for breach of express warranty, their Magnuson-Moss claim based on this theory must be dismissed. The Court GRANTS PCNA’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Magnuson-Moss claim to the extent that it is premised on an alleged breach of express warranty. 2. Implied Warranty Plaintiffs note in their memorandum in opposition that only Colorado, Michigan, New Jersey, Texas, Georgia, and Ohio Plaintiffs are “raising claims” under the Act’s implied warranty provisions. (ECF No. 77, at 32.) California, Florida, New York, and Washington Plaintiffs are therefore excluded from the nationwide class’s Magnuson-Moss claim. To the extent that these Plaintiffs are asserting MagnusonMoss claims as part of the nationwide class, the Court dismisses their claims as they relate to PCNA. See J & R Mktg., 549 F.3d at 390. The Court GRANTS PCNA’s motion to dismiss California, Florida, New York, and Washington Plaintiffs’ Magnuson-Moss claims in their entirety. The remaining Plaintiffs allege that PCNA failed to comply with its implied warranties in violation of MagnusonMoss. The Act defines “implied warranty” as “an implied warranty arising under State law (as modified by sections 108 and 104(a) [15 U.S.C. §§ 2308 and 2304(a) ]) in connection with the sale by a supplier of a consumer product.” 15 U.S.C. § 2301(7). Courts have uniformly held that Congress intended the Act’s implied warranty provisions to be interpreted in accordance with the relevant state’s law, except as expressly modified by the Act. See Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 807 F.2d 1000, 1013-14 (D.C.Cir.1986). The Court must therefore determine whether Plaintiffs state a claim for breach of implied warranty under the laws of Ohio, Georgia, New Jersey, Colorado, Michigan, and Texas in order to determine which Plaintiffs are included in the nationwide class. PCNA offers three arguments as to why this Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ Magnuson-Moss claim. First, PCNA argues that the Act does not supplant state privity requirements and that Georgia and Ohio Plaintiffs’ claims fail for lack of privity. Second, PCNA argues that the Warranties effectively limit the duration of all implied warranties to the duration of the Warranty Period (four-years/50,000 miles), which had expired by the time the alleged defect manifested in each Plaintiffs vehicle. Finally, PCNA arguesThat Plaintiffs are precluded from bringing their MagnusonMoss claims because they failed to provide PCNA with an opportunity to cure the defect. The Court will consider each of these arguments in turn. a. State Privity Requirements— Georgia and Ohio It is well settled that Magnuson-Moss does not supplant state law privity requirements. Abraham v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 795 F.2d 238, 249-51 (2d Cir.1986); see also Gill v. Blue Bird Body Co., 147 Fed.Appx. 807, 810 (11th Cir.2005) (citing Voelker v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., 353 F.3d 516, 525 (7th Cir.2003); Abraham, 795 F.2d at 249). The Court therefore looks to Georgia and Ohio state law to determine whether Georgia and Ohio Plaintiffs may advance implied warranty claims under the Act as part of the nationwide class. For the reasons set forth in Section IV(E) of this Opinion and Order (Count Eleven), the Court finds that Georgia Plaintiff fails to meet the privity requirements that are necessary to sustain an implied warranty of merchantability claim under Georgia law. See infra Section IV(E) (Count Eleven). Georgia Plaintiff therefore fails to state an implied warranty claim under Magnuson-Moss. See Temple, 133 Fed.Appx. at 268. The Court similarly finds that Ohio Plaintiffs fail to satisfy Ohio’s privity requirements for a breach of implied warranty claim under Magnuson-Moss. Although Ohio courts recognize two forms of implied warranty claims — implied warranty in tort and implied warranty of merchantability (contract) — only the latter can form the basis of a Magnuson-Moss claim. See Curl v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 114 Ohio St.3d 226, 2007-Ohio-3609, 871 N.E.2d 1141, ¶ 28. Ohio Plaintiffs concede that they cannot advance an implied warranty of merchantability claim because they are not in privity with PCNA. Ohio Plaintiffs therefore fail to state a Magnuson-Moss claim. Ohio Plaintiffs’ argument that their Magnuson-Moss claim survives based on their implied warranty in tort claim— which does not require privity — is without merit. In Curl, the Ohio Supreme Court confronted the following question: does Ohio law require that the parties be in privity of contract in order for a plaintiff to state a claim for breach of implied warranty under Magnuson-Moss? Curl, 114 Ohio St.3d ¶ 1. The court unequivocally answered yes. Id. ¶ 28. The court reasoned that privity requirements for contractual claims, such as those arising under the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) and Magnuson-Moss, allow sellers of goods to define the scope of their responsibility and provide a greater degree of foreseeability regarding potential claimants. Id. ¶ 26. The court also cited Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., which provides that “Magnuson-Moss is strictly a warranty statute based in contract law” and that “[i]t is plain to the Court that where a State permits warranty claims that are based on either tort or contract law, the Court must look exclusively to contract law to determine whether privity is required.” 588 F.Supp. 1513, 1527 (D.D.C.1984). The Curl court implicitly reached this same conclusion. See 114 Ohio St.3d ¶ 28. Ohio Plaintiffs’ implied warranty in tort claim cannot form the basis of their Magnuson-Moss claim. The Court finds that Ohio and Georgia Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for breach of implied warranty under Magnuson-Moss. These Plaintiffs are therefore excluded from the nationwide class’s MagnusonMoss claim. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS PCNA’s motion to dismiss Georgia and Ohio Plaintiffs’ Magnuson-Moss claims in their entirety. b. Durational Limitation — Colorado, Michigan, New Jersey, and Texas The Court now considers the remaining Plaintiffs’ allegations. Colorado, Michigan, New Jersey, and Texas have each adopted the UCC’s implied warranty provisions. In each state, a seller warrants that its goods shall be merchantable in every contract for the sale of those goods, subject to certain restrictions. UCC § 2-314 (2011). Magnuson-Moss provides that a seller/warrantor may limit the duration of this implied warranty “to the duration of a written warranty of reasonable duration, if such limitation is conscionable and is set forth in clear and unmistakable language and prominently displayed on the face of the warranty.” 15 U.S.C. § 2308(b). It is undisputed that the Warranties purport to limit the duration of all implied warranties to a period of four-years/50,000 miles and that this period had expired by the time the alleged defect manifested in each Plaintiffs vehicle. The parties dispute whether this durational limitation is enforceable under the Act. Plaintiffs argue that the Warranties’ limitation is unenforceable because it is unconscionable and because it is not conspicuous. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts to suggest that the limitation is unconscionable; thus, it does not consider the parties’ arguments regarding conspicuousness. As an initial matter, PCNA argues that the Court should refuse to consider the unconscionability arguments of Colorado, Michigan, and Texas Plaintiffs because these plaintiffs do not mention the word “unconscionable” in asserting their specific claims for relief. The Court rejects this argument for two reasons. First, the relevant question for this Court is whether Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts in support of their unconscionability argument, not whether they have specifically alleged certain terms. See, e.g., Alban v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 09-5398, 2011 WL 900114, at *8-9 (D.N.J. Mar. 15, 2011) (“Alban II”) (dismissing a plaintiffs implied warranty claim premised on unconscionability when she failed to plead facts in support of her unconscionability allegations); see also Tullis v. UMB Bank, N.A., 515 F.3d 673, 680-81 (6th Cir.2008) (stating that courts should not “elevate form over substance” in deciding a motion to dismiss; the complaint need only put the defendant on notice of the claim). Second, PCNA had adequate notice that Plaintiffs were challenging the Warranties’ durational limitation on this ground. New Jersey Plaintiffs specifically alleged that any limitation or negation of the implied warranty, including any time limitation, is unconscionable and unenforceable. See In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., 799 F.Supp.2d at 782 (stating that a court should view each allegation in the context of the entire complaint); cf. In re OnStar Contract Litig., 600 F.Supp.2d 861, 879 (E.D.Mich.2009) (dismissing claim for breach of express warranty over an “unconscionability” challenge when the complaint “eontain[ed] no allegations whatsoever that the express written warranties ... are unconscionable”). PCNA also referenced unconscionability in its motion and argued that the Warranties’ durational limitation was enforceable and not unconscionable; thus, PCNA cannot now argue that this claim was a surprise. The Court will consider Colorado, Michigan, Texas, and New Jersey Plaintiffs’ substantive arguments regarding unconscionability. Federal courts look to substantive state law in determining whether a durational limitation on an implied warranty is unconscionable. See, e.g., Alban v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No 09-5398, 2010 WL 3636253, at *8 (D.N.J. Sept. 8, 2010) (“Al-ban I ”). PCNA does not offer arguments specific to each state; instead, it argues that the Warranties’ durational limitation is not unconscionable under New Jersey law and that there are no meaningful distinctions between New Jersey law and the laws of the other states. In New Jersey, courts look to the circumstances surrounding the formation of a contract to determine whether procedural or substantive unconscionability exists. Sitogum Holdings, Inc. v. Ropes, 352 N.J.Super. 555, 800 A.2d 915, 921 (2002). Facts suggesting that the bargaining process was fundamentally unfair or that the resulting contractual provision is “so one-sided as to shock the court’s conscience” would support a finding of unconscionability. Id.; see also Carlson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 883 F.2d 287, 294-97 (4th Cir.1989). The fact that a manufacturer had knowledge of a defect at the time it issued a warranty does not make a time/mileage limitation on an implied warranty unconscionable. Henderson v. Volvo Cars N. Am. LLC, No. 09-4146, 2010 WL 2925913, at *9, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73624, at *26 (D.N.J. July 21, 2010). Such knowledge is, however, relevant in determining whether the bargaining process was fundamentally fair. Carlson, 883 F.2d at 294-97. In other words, although a manufacturer’s knowledge of a defect will not invalidate a durational limitation, the relevant question in the unconscionability context is whether one party abused its superior knowledge and the opposing party’s relative ignorance so as to create an exchange of obligations that is substantively unconscionable. Id. at 296. The Carlson court provided several examples of facts that would support a finding of unconscionability. For example, when a manufacturer is aware that its product is inherently defective and the buyer has no notice of or ability to detect the problem, “there is perforce a substantial disparity in the parties’ relative bargaining power.” Id. See also Henderson, 2010 WL 2925913, at *9 n. 6, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73624, at *26 n. 6 (finding that the plaintiffs allegation that a “gross disparity in bargaining power” existed between the parties was sufficient to support a finding of unconscionability at the motion to dismiss stage). The fact that a defect is likely to substantially limit the product’s intended use only amplifies this disparity. See id. at 294 (finding it “most significant” that the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant knew of but concealed from consumers the fact that an inherent defect could cause “catastrophic failures”). Similarly, facts suggesting that the stronger party knew that the weaker party would be unable to receive substantial benefit from the contract invokes both procedural and substantive unconscionability. See id. at 296; Sitogum Holdings, 800 A.2d at 921. The Carlson court considered other allegations such as the “lack of effective warranty competition among dominant firms in the automobile manufacturing industry” but suggested that the contracting parties’ knowledge disparity was perhaps the “most significant” factor in its unconscionability analysis. Carlson, 883 F.2d at 294. The question for this Court is not whether the Warranties’ durational limitation is unconscionable as a matter of law, but whether Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state a prima facie case of unconscionability. See, e.g., id. at 293-94. Plaintiffs have made such a showing in this case. Necessarily viewing the Complaint in its entirety and drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs’ favor, Plaintiffs (and Colorado, Michigan, Texas, and New Jersey Plaintiffs by incorporation) allege facts suggesting that PCNA knew that the Cayenne’s coolant system was inherently defective and that purchasers would bear the cost of correcting that defect. See supra Section III(B). PCNA allegedly knew that, in order to keep the vehicle in use after the Warranty Period, consumers would be required to purchase a part that is significantly more expensive than the part with which the Cayenne was originally equipped. Plaintiffs also allege facts suggesting that the defect could substantially damage other parts of the engine and/or render the vehicle inoperable. Finally, Plaintiffs allege facts suggesting that PCNA did not disclose this information to purchasers, that purchasers could not have seen the defect given the design and placement of the coolant tubes in the vehicle, and that such information would have altered each individual plaintiffs buying decisions. These facts are sufficient to suggest that there existed a “substantial disparity in the parties’ relative bargaining power” in this case such that Plaintiffs were unable to receive a substantial benefit from the Warranties’ four-year/50,000 mile implied warranty coverage. See Carlson, 883 F.2d at 294; cf. Alban, 2011 WL 900114, at *8 (rejecting the plaintiffs argument that a durational limitation on an implied warranty was unconscionable because plaintiff failed to plead facts supporting his assertions that he had “no meaningful choice” in the bargaining process and that a “gross disparity in bargaining power existed”). Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts suggesting that both procedural and substantive unconscionability exist in this case so as to defeat the motion to dismiss. The Court notes that this holding does not contradict the Second Circuit’s decision in Abraham v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., on which PCNA relies throughout its motion. 795 F.2d at 249-51. The Abraham court held that a plaintiff could not pursue a claim for breach of express warranty after the warranty period had expired by alleging that the manufacturer had knowledge of a defect at the time it issued the warranty. Id. at 249-50. The court stated: Moreover, virtually all product failures discovered in automobiles after expiration of the warranty can be attributed to a “latent defect” that existed at the time of sale or during the term of the warranty. All parts will wear out sooner or later and thus have a limited effective life. Manufacturers always have knowledge regarding the effective life of particular parts and the likelihood of their failing within a particular period of time. Such knowledge is easily demonstrated by the fact that manufacturers must predict rates of failure of particular parts in order to price warranties and thus can always be said to “know” that many parts will fail after the warranty period has expired. A rule that would make failure of a part actionable based on such “knowledge” would render meaningless time/mileage limitations in warranty coverage. Id. at 250. The Carlson court distinguished the express warranty context in which this language arose from the implied warranty context. See 883 F.2d at 294-97. The Carlson court reasoned that the Abraham court was called upon to decide the reasonableness of an express warranty’s temporal limitation, which is an objective analysis based on a reasonable consumer’s expectations. Carlson, 883 F.2d at 295. The manufacturer’s subjective knowledge is therefore not relevant in the express warranty context. Id. Unlike temporal limitations on express warranties, however, temporal limitations on implied warranties must not only be reasonable but also conscionable. 15 U.S.C. § 2308 (“[Ijmplied warranties may be limited in duration to the duration of a written warranty of reasonable duration, if such limitation is conscionable .... ”). Unconscionability is a “broader question” than reasonableness and implicates the parties’ subjective knowledge in the bargaining process. Carlson, 883 F.2d at 295. This Court’s holding is therefore consistent with both Carlson and Abraham. The Court finds that Colorado, Michigan, Texas, and New Jersey Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to support the inference that the Warranties’ durational limitation on all implied warranties was unconscionable. Thus, for purposes of this motion, the Court assumes that the implied warranty of merchantability had not expired at the time the alleged defect manifested in Colorado, Michigan, Texas, and New Jersey Plaintiffs’ vehicles. PCNA offers no additional arguments regarding these Plaintiffs’ implied warranty claims. The Court finds that Colorado, Michigan, Texas, and New Jersey Plaintiffs state a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the law of their respective states, as modified by MagnusonMoss. c. Opportunity to Cure To prevail on a Magnuson-Moss claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate not only that a product failed to live up to its written or implied warranties, but also that the seller had an “opportunity to cure” the alleged defect and failed to do so. Temple, 133 Fed.Appx. at 268; 15 U.S.C. § 2310(e). PCNA argues that the opportunity to cure requirement is a condition precedent to filing suit and that, because Plaintiffs failed to provide PCNA with an opportunity to cure before they filed their Complaint, dismissal of their Magnuson-Moss claim is proper. PCNA’s argument is not well taken. Section 2310(e) sets forth the Act’s opportunity to cure requirement. Under Section 2310(e): No action (other than a class action or an action respecting a warranty to which subsection (a)(3) applies) may be brought under subsection (d) for failure to comply with any obligation under any written or implied warranty or service contract, and a class of consumers may not proceed in a class action under such subsection with respect to such a failure except to the extent the court determines necessary to establish the representative capacity of the named plaintiffs, unless the person obligated under the warranty or service contract is afforded a reasonable opportunity to cure such failure to comply. In the case of such a class action ... brought under subsection (d) for breach of any written or implied warranty or service contract, such reasonable opportunity will be afforded by the named plaintiffs and they shall at that time notify the defendant that they are acting on behalf of the class. In the case of such a class action which is brought in a district court of the United States, the representative capacity of the named plaintiffs shall be established in the application of rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(e) (emphasis added). The plain language of the statute imposes different requirements on individual plaintiffs and class action plaintiffs regarding the time at which they must satisfy the opportunity to cure requirement. See id. For individual plaintiffs, Section 2310(e) is a condition precedent to filing suit unless the warrantor establishes an informal dispute settlement procedure pursuant to Section 2310(a)(3). See id. In contrast, plaintiffs bringing a class action may file suit before the defendant is afforded an opportunity to cure for the limited purpose of establishing the representative capacity of the named plaintiffs. See id. Once a court makes this determination, but before the class action can proceed, the defendant must be afforded an opportunity to cure the alleged breach of warranty and the named plaintiffs must at that point inform the defendant that they are acting on behalf of a class. See id.; see also Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 807 F.2d 1000, 1004 (D.C.Cir.1986) (interpreting the plain language of Section 2310(e) as indicating that “a plaintiff may file a class action, but may not proceed with that action, until she has afforded the defendant a reasonable opportunity to cure its alleged breach”); In re Sears, Roebuck & Co. Tools Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. MDL-1703, 2012 WL 1015806, at *5 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 22, 2012) (“[T]he statute allows a Magnuson-Moss class action to be brought before the defendant is given an opportunity to cure (only to the point of establishing the named plaintiffs’ representative capacity) PCNA cites cases in which courts have dismissed class action Magnuson-Moss claims because the plaintiff failed to satisfy Section 2310(e) prior to filing suit, but this result contradicts the plain language of the statute. To hold that no class action “may be brought ... unless the person obligated under the warranty or service contract is afforded a reasonable opportunity to cure” would read the “other than a class action” language out of the statute and would nullify the phrase that “a class of consumers may not proceed in a class action ... except to the extent the court determines necessary to establish the representative capacity of the named plaintiffs.” 15 U.S.C. § 2310(e). The only way to reconcile the latter clause with the rest of the statute is to read Section 2310(e) as standing for the proposition that a class action may be brought, but may not proceed once the court determines the representative capacity of the named plaintiffs, until the defendant is provided with an opportunity to cure the alleged defect. See id. If a class action may not be brought unless a defendant first is afforded an opportunity to cure the alleged breach, then the phrase “a class of consumer may not proceed in a class action” would not make sense. There would be nothing to proceed with because no case would have been brought. The courts that interpreted Section 2310(e) to dismiss a plaintiffs class action claim at the pleadings stage failed to account for this language in the statute. In Bearden v. Honeywell, for example, the court dismissed a plaintiffs putative class action because she failed to notify the defendant that she was acting on behalf of a class prior to filing her claim. 720 F.Supp.2d 932, 936 (M.D.Tenn.2010) (citing Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp., No. 08-2746, 2009 WL 4723366, at *10 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 4, 2009)). See also Rehberger v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., No. 3:11-0085, 2011 WL 780681, at *11 (M.D.Tenn. Feb. 28, 2011) (citing Bearden and dismissing a class action Magnuson-Moss claim because the plaintiff failed to provide the defendant with an opportunity to cure prior to filing suit). In so holding, however, the Bearden court omitted the phrase “other than a class action” from its quotation of Section 2310(e) and stated, with no apparent analysis, that class actions are subject to the same “no action ... may be brought” language that applies to claims brought by individual plaintiffs. 720 F.Supp.2d at 936. The Steams and Rehberger courts similarly dismissed class action claims under Section 2310(e) without acknowledging the language in the statute that removes class actions from the requirement that “no action ... may be brought” until the defendant is afforded an opportunity to cure. See Stearns, 2009 WL 4723366, at *10; Rehberger, 2011 WL 780681, at *11; 15 U.S.C. § 2310(e). The Court finds that Section 2310(e) does not mandate dismissal of Plaintiffs’ class action claim at this stage of the litigation. Thus, the Court does not consider the parties’ arguments regarding PCNA’s alleged knowledge of the defect as an appropriate substitute for notice under Section 2310(e). The Court DENIES PCNA’s motion to dismiss Count One of Plaintiffs’ Complaint to the extent that it is comprised of Colorado, Michigan, Texas, and New Jersey Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Magnuson-Moss. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART PCNA’s motion to dismiss Count One of Plaintiffs Complaint. B. CALIFORNIA California Plaintiffs Bob Conrad, David Graas, Sean Krider, and Sy Due Tran each purchased Cayennes that came equipped with plastic coolant tubes. Plaintiffs Conrad and Tran purchased their vehicles new from Porsche dealerships, and Plaintiffs Graas and Krider purchased used Cayennes from unidentified sellers. All four California Plaintiffs experienced problems with their coolant tubes, and each paid to install aluminum coolant pipes in their vehicles. California Plaintiffs do not claim that these problems began while any of their vehicles were under warranty. California Plaintiffs bring claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code § 1750 et seq., California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 et seq., and for unjust enrichment. PCNA moves to dismiss each claim. Count Two: California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act California Plaintiffs allege that PCNA violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) by failing to disclose and/or concealing from consumers the material fact that the Cayenne’s plastic coolant tubes were defective and would likely fail before the life of the engine. California Plaintiffs allege that these facts were material because reasonable consumers, had they known of the defect, would not have purchased the Cayenne or would have insisted on paying less for it. California Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs under the CLRA. The CLRA serves to “protect consumers against unfair and deceptive business practices and to provide efficient and economical procedures to secure such protection.” Cal. Civ.Code. § 1760. Plaintiffs invoke sections five and seven of the CLRA, which proscribe: (5) Representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection which he or she does not have. (7) Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another. Id. § 1770(a)(5) & (7). Omissions are actionable under sections 1770(a)(5) and 1170(a)(7) of the CLRA where (1) the omission is contrary to a defendant’s express representation or (2) the defendant failed to disclose or concealed a fact that it had a duty to disclose. See Daugherty v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 144 Cal.App.4th 824, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 118, 126 (2006). In Daugherty, a California court of appeals found that an automobile manufacturer had no duty to disclose a defective oil seal that would manifest and require repairs after the vehicles’ warranties expired. Id. at 837, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 118. The court found that the manufacturer’s silence was not contrary to any of its affirmative representations and that the plaintiff had failed to allege facts suggesting that the defect constituted a safety risk. Id. at 835-37, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 118. See also Bardin v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 136 Cal.App.4th 1255, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 634, 648-49 (2006) (dismissing the plaintiffs CLRA claim because the manufacturer had no duty to disclose the fact that it used steel in its vehicles’ exhaust manifolds instead of the more durable and expensive cast iron). The court therefore affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs CLRA claim. Daugherty, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d at 128. Courts have since cited Daugherty for the proposition that a manufacturer has no duty to inform consumers of defects that will manifest outside the warranty period unless the manufacturer has affirmatively misrepresented the defective nature of the product or the defect poses a safety risk to consumers. See Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1141— 43 (9th Cir.2012); Oestreicher v. Alienware Corp., 322 Fed.Appx. 489, 493 (9th Cir.2009). Presumably, because a consumer expects that a manufacturer will guarantee its product against unreasonable safety risks, both within and outside the warranty period, a manufacturer’s failure to disclose such risks is misleading and therefore actionable under the CLRA. See, e.g., Decker, v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., No. SACV 11-0873, 2011 WL 5101705, at *4 (C.D.Cal. Oct. 24, 2011); see also Daugherty, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d at 127. A defect that poses an objéctive, identifiable safety risk to consumers will trigger a duty to disclose under the CLRA. See, e.g., Cholakyan v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 796 F.Supp.2d 1220, 1236-37 (C.D.Cal.2011); Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 749 F.Supp.2d 980, 989 (N.D.Cal.2010), aff'd, 462 Fed.Appx. 660 (9th Cir.2011). California courts have found that defects in automobiles that could cause sudden or unexpected engine failure while driving pose such a risk. See, e.g., Cholakyan, 796 F.Supp.2d at 1236-37. In Cholakyan, the plaintiffs alleged that a defect caused water to enter the driver/front passenger foot well in their vehicles, potentially causing electrical faults due to water in the control units. Id. at 1236. The court found that plaintiffs had adequately pleaded a safety issue because they alleged that the defect could cause “sudden and unexpected engine failure” while driving. See id. See also Smith, 749 F.Supp.2d at 990 (suggesting that “evidence that the [defect] causes engines to shut off unexpectedly or causes individuals to stop their vehicles under dangerous conditions” would trigger a duty to disclose under the CLRA); Eisen v. Porsche Cars N. Am., No. CV 11-9405, 2012 WL 841019, at *5 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 22, 2012) (finding that plaintiff did not plead a safety concern because he failed to indicate that “failure of the [defective part] somehow impairs steering or other critical vehicle function”). PCNA acknowledges that vehicle defects that could cause “sudden, unexpected engine failure” or related risks would evince a safety concern under the CLRA. (ECF No. 62, at 41.) Importantly, the Cholakyan court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged a safety risk despite the fact that the water leak defect had not actually caused sudden engine failure in their vehicles. 796 F.Supp.2d at 1236-37 (rejecting defendant’s argument that “the purported safety defects are speculative in nature, because there is no allegation that [plaintiff] or any other class member ever experienced such a defect”); see also Ehrlich v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 801 F.Supp.2d 908, 918 (C.D.Cal.2010) (“The Court is not persuaded ... that Plaintiff must plead that consumers have been injured by the alleged unreasonable safety risk.”). The courts in both Cholakyan and Ehrlich concluded that the plaintiffs had standing to pursue their CLRA claims because they incurred monetary damages in repairing the alleged defects in their vehicles. See Cholakyan, 796 F.Supp.2d at 1236-37; Ehrlich, 801 F.Supp.2d at 918. They therefore could invoke Daugherty’s safety exception without alleging any safety-related injuries. See Cholakyan, 796 F.Supp.2d at 1236-37; Ehrlich, 801 F.Supp.2d at 918. Here, Plaintiffs allege that the use of plastic coolant tubes in the Cayenne put consumers at risk of engine failure while operating the vehicle. Necessarily taking all facts alleged in the Complaint as true, Plaintiffs (and California Plaintiffs by incorporation) allege that “[a]s a result of continuous exposure to extreme heat, plastic coolant tubes crack and leak” (ECF No. 35 ¶ 52); cracked coolant tubes result in “coolant seeping directly into the vehicle’s starter, transmission seals, and other components causing possible engine damage and engine failure” (id. ¶ 3); that coolant tube failure renders the vehicle “inoperable” (id. ¶ 54) or can “disabl[e] the vehicle” (id. ¶ 70); and that “acute failure of the [coolant tubes] can and sometimes does occur while traveling at high speeds on public roadways” (id.). These allegations are sufficient to support the inference that the alleged defect can cause engine failure and render the vehicle inoperable while driving, which is sufficient to allege a safety concern under California law. See, e.g., Smith, 749 F.Supp.2d at 990. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have pleaded facts sufficient to invoke the second Daugherty exception. PCNA’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. PCNA contests Plaintiffs’ factual assertions and argues that coolant loss “does not impair a vehicle’s operability during the first few minutes after it occurs,” pointing specifically to one named plaintiff who drove his vehicle for four miles “without any adverse effect on vehicle operability.” (ECF No. 62, at 42.) These arguments are not appropriate at the motion to dismiss stage. Here, the Court must accept that coolant tube failure “renders the vehicle inoperable,” possibly while “traveling at high speeds.” (ECF No. 35 ¶¶ 9, 70). The fact that one of the named plaintiffs did not experience this result does not alter this conclusion. See, e.g., Cholakyan, 796 F.Supp.2d at 1236-37. PCNA’s argument that Plaintiffs fail to establish a sufficient nexus between the alleged defect and the purported safety risk is similarly unpersuasive. Plaintiffs describe the layout of the Cayenne’s engine and explain how this layout “virtually guarantees” that plastic coolant tubes will fracture. (ECF No. 35 II53.) Plaintiffs also explain how the cracked coolant tubes cause coolant to leak into specific engine components and allege that such a leak disables the vehicle. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 70.) These allegations are sufficient to demonstrate a causal connection at this stage of the litigation. See, e.g., Cholakyan, 796 F.Supp.2d at 1236-37 (finding that an alleged water leak defect that caused “electrical faults” in some cases could plausibly give rise to the alleged safety concern of “sudden an unexpected engine failure”); Marsikian v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, No. CV 08-04876, 2009 WL 8379784, at *6-7 (C.D.Cal. May 4, 2009) (denying motion to dismiss a CLRA claim where the plaintiff alleged that air intake systems were “susceptible to clogging” and the defect could lead to “substantial electrical failure” because “it is not implausible that the [clogging] would cause catastrophic engine and electrical system failure while the car is on the road” (internal citations omitted)). Cf. Wilson, 668 F.3d at 1144 (holding that, where an alleged computer defect weakened the power connection between the power jack and the motherboard, resulting in a loss of power to the computer, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate how the alleged defect caused the computer to “ignite” and pose a safety concern); Eisen, 2012 WL 841019, at *3 (finding that a plaintiff failed to allege a safety defect with particularity when he alleged only that the engine shaft in his vehicle “failed” but did not explain “how the shaft fails and how that failure affects the vehicle”). As a final note, the Court agrees with PCNA’s argument that the risk of being stranded is too speculative to establish a safety concern as a matter of law. Smith, 749 F.Supp.2d at 991 (where an alleged ignition lock defect prevented drivers from starting their engines, leaving them “unexpectedly stranded,” the alleged risks were “speculative in nature, deriving in each instance from the particular location at which the driver initially has parked the vehicle and/or the driver’s individual circumstances.”); Smith, 462 Fed.Appx. at 662-63; Eisen, 2012 WL 841019, at *5 (citing, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Smith and holding that an engine defect that could leave drivers stranded on the road, “susceptible to being hit by another vehicle,” was too speculative to constitute a safety concern as a matter of law). As such, the individual experience of California Plaintiff Graas, whose coolant tubes failed while traveling and left him “[sjtranded on the side of the highway in the middle of the night,” plays no role in the Court’s decision that Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a safety concern. (ECF No. 77, at 61.) Considering those objective safety risks that the Cayenne’s plastic coolant tubes allegedly pose to consumers, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ safety allegations are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded facts to invoke Daugherty’s safety exception. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that PCNA had a duty under California law to disclose the alleged coolant tube defect to consumers. PCNA does not argue that it disclosed the alleged defect or that such an omission is