307 F. Supp. 3d 646
E.D. Mich.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (owners/lessees of 2007–2012 Dodge Ram 2500/3500 with Cummins 6.7L diesel) allege the trucks emit NOx well above legal/advertised levels because of "defeat devices" or defective emissions controls. Plaintiffs seek class relief under RICO, the Magnuson‑Moss Warranty Act, and various state laws.
- Plaintiffs performed PEMS testing on a single 2012 Ram 2500 and report substantially elevated on‑road NOx (averages and spikes many times the regulatory standard).
- Plaintiffs supplement the PEMS results by citing a broader "worldwide emissions scandal" (e.g., Volkswagen), an EPA/DOJ enforcement action concerning 2014–2016 EcoDiesel Rams and Jeeps, and past enforcement actions involving Cummins.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 9(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6); the court evaluated whether the complaint pleaded sufficient well‑pleaded facts to make the alleged misconduct plausible under Twombly/Iqbal.
- The court concluded the complaint relied on conclusory allegations (presence of a defeat device, class‑wide defect) and insufficient corroborating factual allegations beyond one vehicle test; accordingly the court found no plausible inference of defect or defeat device and dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing and failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of factual pleading under Rule 12(b)(6) (Iqbal/Twombly) | PEMS results + industry enforcement history and scandals support a plausible inference of a defeat device/defect across the model range. | PEMS of one truck and generalized industry examples are conclusory and do not plausibly show a defect or defeat device in these Trucks. | Court: Dismiss — plaintiffs' allegations are conclusory; single PEMS + general allegations do not nudge from conceivable to plausible. |
| Standing / injury‑in‑fact | Owners suffered concrete injury (overpayment, diminished value, purchase of illegal/defective vehicle) traceable to defendants' conduct. | Alleged injuries rest on implausible factual predicate (no adequately pleaded defect); thus no cognizable injury. | Court: Dismiss for lack of standing — plaintiffs failed to plead sufficiently plausible injury in fact. |
| Reliance on other enforcement/actions (VW, FCA EcoDiesel, past Cummins fines) as corroboration | These authorities and enforcement actions create a plausible inference that similar misconduct occurred here. | Other enforcement involved different engines, manufacturers, or unrelated facts; they do not establish similarity sufficient to plead a defect in the Affected Vehicles. | Court: Such allegations are insufficient to supply the missing factual link; they do not salvage the complaint. |
| Classwide defect inference from single‑vehicle testing | The tested vehicle is representative and combined with industry evidence supports classwide defect inference. | Single‑vehicle testing cannot establish a systemic defect absent facts tying test vehicle to classwide design, software, or control modules. | Court: Single test without specific factual linkage to a common defect/device is inadequate to plead a classwide defect. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain factual allegations that make liability plausible)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must nudge claims from conceivable to plausible)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury fairly traceable to defendant and redressable)
- Counts v. General Motors, 237 F. Supp. 3d 572 (E.D. Mich. 2017) (European testing plus plaintiffs' testing supported plausible defect inference)
- 16630 Southfield Ltd. P'ship v. Flagstar Bank, 727 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff must plead sufficient factual matter to raise a plausible inference of wrongdoing)
- Eidson v. Tennessee Dept. of Children's Servs., 510 F.3d 631 (6th Cir. 2007) (conclusory allegations and legal conclusions will not suffice)
- Mack Trucks, Inc. v. E.P.A., 682 F.3d 87 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (background on EPA's 2010 NOx standard and industry lead time)