Jordan v. CARZ R US, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Stacey Jordan,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARZ R US, LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action H-25-3511
ORDER
Pending before the court is Defendant CARZ R US, LLC’s
Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. The motion is DENIED without
prejudice to raising the same issues in a motion for summary
judgment later in the case.
Stacey Jordan alleges that she purchased a defective vehicle
from CARZ R US, LLC (CRU). ECF No. 1. Among other things, she
alleges that CRU employees told her that they inspected the
vehicle, that they had found no defects, and that the vehicle was
in “perfect running condition.” Id. at 7. She states that the vehicle’s
engine failed very soon after she took possession of it, and that,
contrary to what she was told by CRU, the vehicle had a prior
“catastrophic engine failure.” Id. at 3. Jordan’s Complaint contains
many allegations not only about the false representations that
CRU made to her, absent which she says she would not have
purchased the vehicle, but also about CRU’s conduct after the
vehicle 	broke 	down. 	She 	claims, 	for 	example, 	that 	CRU 	was
negligent in its repair of the vehicle, and that CRU failed to pay off
the vehicle as promised. She brings claims for negligence, breach
of 	contract, 	fraud, 	unjust 	enrichment, 	breach 	of 	express 	and
implied warranties, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 18, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03511 Document 22 Filed 03/18/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
In 	the 	motion 	to 	dismiss, 	CRU 	argues 	that 	many 	of
Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed because she bought the vehicle
“as-is” and disclaimed that any representations had been made to
her. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff argues that CRU cannot rely on those
contract 	provisions 	because 	CRU 	made 	fraudulent
misrepresentations about the condition of the vehicle and thus
fraudulently induced Plaintiff to enter the sales contract. CRU also
argues that the disclaimers in the sales contract defeat Plaintiff’s
contract claim, which CRU construes to involve a “promise to
deliver 	a 	defect-free 	vehicle.” 	Plaintiff 	argues 	that 	CRU
misconstrues her contract claims, which she asserts include not
only a broken promise to “deliver a vehicle capable of operation,”
but also a breach of a repair agreement and breach of a settlement
agreement. The parties have similar disagreements about the
nature of Plaintiff’s equitable claims.
Defendant’s motion does not address Plaintiff’s claims for
negligence in connection with repairing the vehicle or breach of the
contract to pay off plaintiff’s note. Those two claims alone will
require investigation into the parties’ interactions and discussions,
the vehicle breakdown itself, and any post-breakdown agreements.
Thus, granting the motion at this point would not meaningfully
narrow the issues for discovery or otherwise simplify the case.
Dismissal at this point would instead give rise to unnecessary
briefing and appellate arguments later. Thus, judicial economy is
best served by deferring consideration of the issues raised in the
motion to dismiss and allowing them to be resubmitted in the form
of a summary judgment motion. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A)
(contemplating 	the 	postponement 	of 	disposition 	of 	a 	Rule 	12
motion until trial).
It also appears to the court that Plaintiff has raised many
factual disputes in her responsive briefing that must be resolved
before the court can make a full, fair, and informed decision about
Case 4:25-cv-03511 Document 22 Filed 03/18/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
whether Plaintiff’s claims should proceed to trial. The issues in the
motion to dismiss are thus best considered in the context of a
motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) (requiring
that the court treat a motion to dismiss as one for summary
judgment when matters outside the pleadings are presented and
considered by the court).
For these reasons, CRU’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, is
DENIED without prejudice to raising the same arguments in a
summary 	judgment 	motion 	when 	the 	record 	has 	been 	fully
developed, 	and 	the 	court 	can 	examine 	all 	the 	documentary
evidence and testimony.
Signed at Houston, Texas on March 18, 2026.
______________________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-03511 Document 22 Filed 03/18/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3