## Facts

- A consumer bought a used 2002 Mazda 626 from a Miami dealership operating as “Marlin Mazda.”
- The dealership represented the vehicle as being in “excellent” condition, and the consumer purchased it based on that representation.
- At closing, the consumer was required to sign multiple transfer-related documents, including a power of attorney and an odometer disclosure statement, but was not shown the vehicle’s original title.
- The documents used were allegedly not the official secured forms required under applicable law and allegedly omitted required disclosures.
- The consumer alleged the dealership transferred ownership without disclosing mileage on the title as required by federal regulation.
- The consumer alleged the dealership’s conduct violated the federal Odometer Act and implementing regulations and was done “with intent to defraud,” though not specifically to mislead her about the mileage figure itself.

## Issues

1. Whether a civil claim under 49 U.S.C. § 32710(a) requires pleading intent to defraud specifically as to the vehicle’s mileage, or whether intent to defraud connected to an Odometer Act/regulatory violation is sufficient.
2. Whether dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was proper where the complaint alleged an Odometer Act violation and intent to defraud generally, but not mileage-specific fraudulent intent.
3. Whether dismissal of state-law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction can stand after reinstatement of the federal claim.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of the Odometer Act claim and remanded for further proceedings.
- Section 32710(a) does not impose a requirement that the intent to defraud relate specifically to the vehicle’s mileage.
- Because the federal claim was reinstated, the basis for declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims no longer applied; the case was remanded for the district court to proceed accordingly.

## Legal Principles

- Under 49 U.S.C. § 32710(a), a plaintiff states a civil Odometer Act claim by alleging (1) a violation of the Act, a prescribed regulation, or an issued order, and (2) that the violation was committed with intent to defraud.
- Courts may not add a mileage-specific intent element to § 32710(a) absent statutory text requiring it.
- When a federal claim is improperly dismissed, a dismissal of related state-law claims based solely on the absence of remaining federal claims must be reconsidered on remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

## Conclusion

The court held that § 32710(a) requires allegations of an Odometer Act (or regulatory) violation committed with intent to defraud, but does not require allegations that the defendant intended to defraud the plaintiff specifically about the vehicle’s mileage; the dismissal was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings, including reconsideration of supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.


Owens v. Samkle Automotive Inc., 425 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2005)