“In a variety of contexts the Court has held that a precisely drawn, detailed statute pre-empts more general remedies.”
How later courts described this case
- “In a variety of contexts the Court has held that a precisely drawn, detailed statute pre-empts more general remedies.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-10877-GAO
25 ROUTE 28, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
AUDI OF AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
March 27, 2024
O’TOOLE, D.J.
Plaintiff 25 Route 28, Inc., d/b/a Audi Cape Cod (“Audi Cape Cod”), is an authorized Audi-
brand dealership. This action arises out of a controversy between Audi Cape Cod and manufacturer
Audi of America, Inc. (“Audi”) concerning the rate at which Audi is contractually required to
reimburse Audi Cape Cod for repairs performed by the dealer under a standard warranty. Under
the contract relationship of the two parties, Audi Cape Cod requested that Audi pay a warranty
labor rate of $330.31 per hour. Audi rejected that request and instead proposed $177.45 per hour.
Audi Cape Cod in turn rejected Audi’s proposed rate and commenced this action. Audi Cape Cod
alleges that Audi violated three distinct provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93B,
which regulates in various respects the automobile manufacturer-dealership relationship. Before
the Court is Audi’s motion to dismiss some, but not all, of the claims set forth in the amended
complaint.
Count I presents the issue at the heart of this lawsuit: whether Audi Cape Cod’s requested
warranty labor rate was “inaccurate or unreasonable.” See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93B, § 9(b)(2)(ii).
Recognizing that it bears the burden of proof on this issue, Audi asks the Court to dismiss Count I
only in part—as it relates to declaratory relief sought by the plaintiff in the alternative. Audi seeks
complete dismissal of Counts II and III, brought respectively under Sections 4(a) and 9(b)(2)(vii)
of Chapter 93B. The Court denies Audi’s motion as to Count I.
In Count II, Audi Cape Cod accuses Audi of violating Section 4(a) of the statute by denying
its warranty labor rate request in an “arbitrary, . . . bad faith, or unconscionable” manner. (Compl.
¶ 72 (dkt. no. 24).) However, neither Section 4(a) (nor a related provision in Section 3(a)) provide
Audi Cape Cod with a separate cause of action for the warranty rate claim properly asserted in
Count I. It is a common legal maxim that a specific provision governs over a general one. See,
e.g., Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 834 (1976) (“In a variety of contexts the Court
has held that a precisely drawn, detailed statute pre-empts more general remedies.”). Here,
Sections 3(a) and 4(a) are general provisions that make no mention of warranty labor rates.
Conversely, Section 9(b)(2)(ii) provides a highly specific provision pertaining to warranty labor
rate determinations.1 Given the specificity with which the legislature has detailed this order of
operations in Section 9(b)(2)(ii), it is evident that this provision, alleged in Count I, provides Audi
Cape Cod with the proper vehicle for its action. To hold otherwise and permit plaintiffs to instead
bring warranty labor rate disputes under Sections 3(a) and 4(a) would allow for the circumvention
of the precise procedures set forth in Section 9(b)(2)(ii).
The same reasoning applies to Count III. In Count III, Audi Cape Cod alleges that Audi
has violated a separate Chapter 93B subsection, 9(b)(2)(vii), which prohibits manufacturers from
requiring or influencing a dealer to change its prices for retail customer repairs. Because Section
1 First, a dealer submits a warranty labor rate request based on the average retail labor rate. Then,
within thirty days of submission, the manufacturer must decide whether to accept this rate or
choose to audit, rebut, and propose an adjusted rate. Finally, within thirty days of the
manufacturer’s counterproposal, should the dealer disagree with the adjusted rate, it may initiate a
lawsuit. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93B, § 9(b)(2)(ii).
9(b)(2)(ii) directly addresses the controversy over warranty labor rates, there is no need to invoke
a somewhat similar regulation elsewhere in Chapter 93B.
Accordingly, the Court agrees with Audi as to Counts II and III and dismisses those claims
in their entirety. Audi’s motion for partial dismissal of Count I is denied because the declaratory
relief at issue may or may not be implicated in the final disposition of this suit.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge