COHEN v. SUBARU CORPORATION
1:20-cv-08442
| D.N.J. | Mar 10, 2022Background
- Consolidation of four putative class actions alleging Subaru sold/leased 2013–2019 vehicles containing defective Denso low‑pressure fuel‑pump impellers that absorb fuel, deform, and risk engine stall (the “Defect”).
- Subaru and Denso issued recalls in 2020; Plaintiffs allege Subaru’s repair (motor replacement) is inadequate and risks exacerbating the Defect. Several plaintiffs allege manifested failures; many do not.
- Thirty‑four named plaintiffs from multiple states bring ~59 counts (warranty, consumer‑fraud, strict liability, negligent recall/undertaking, contract, unjust enrichment, etc.). Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed some defendants. Case in D.N.J.; Subaru moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- Key factual disputes include (a) whether certain named plaintiffs’ vehicles contain the alleged Denso pump (standing/traceability), (b) whether Subaru knew pre‑sale of the Defect, and (c) adequacy/scope of recall repair.
- Court applies New Jersey choice‑of‑law rules (Restatement) issue‑by‑issue and dismisses or sustains claims state‑by‑state; grants in part and denies in part Subaru’s motion. Appendix summarizes dispositions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to assert other states’ laws (unrepresented states) | Class claims may proceed; determine at Rule 23 stage | Named plaintiffs lack standing to assert laws of states where they neither reside nor purchased vehicles | Court: Dismiss state‑specific claims on behalf of putative class members from states not represented by a named plaintiff (standing required per DaimlerChrysler/Cuno) |
| Standing — Karrat (2013 Outback) traceability | Karrat points to NHTSA complaints suggesting 2013 Outbacks suffered similar issues | Subaru submitted declaration saying 2013 Outbacks lacked Denso low‑pressure pumps | Court: Denied at pleading stage; factual dispute requires discovery (Campbell decl. provokes factual attack) |
| MMWA jurisdiction (express warranty claim) | Plaintiffs say federal jurisdiction exists via CAFA; MMWA §2310(d)(1)(A) allows state courts | Subaru: MMWA federal jurisdiction under §2310(d)(1)(B) requires ≥100 named plaintiffs; federal court lacks MMWA jurisdiction here | Court: Grants dismissal of MMWA claim — federal MMWA jurisdiction not satisfied absent 100 named plaintiffs (adopting reasoning like Powell/Floyd) |
| Implied warranty of merchantability (manifestation, notice, privity) | Plaintiffs allege vehicles not merchantable; many allege manifestations or recall repairs | Subaru: Many plaintiffs never alleged manifestation, failed pre‑suit notice where state law requires it, or lack privity | Court: Dismissed implied‑warranty claims for plaintiffs who did not plead manifestation or required pre‑suit notice; denied dismissal where issues of fact (e.g., privity/agency with dealers) remain |
| Common‑law fraud / state consumer statutes — duty to disclose & reliance | Plaintiffs allege Subaru concealed Defect, relied on omissions, and suffered economic loss | Subaru: Affirmative statements are puffery; in many states omissions require fiduciary/special relationship or unique/superior knowledge; economic‑loss doctrine bars tort recovery | Court: Applied choice‑of‑law by plaintiff; where state law imposes duty for superior knowledge or safety risk, claims survive (e.g., CA, HI, MN, NC, NY, RI, VT, WA); claims dismissed where no duty or economic‑loss rule applies (e.g., NJ, AL, AR, CT, FL, GA, IL, MA, OR, PA, SC, TX, WI) or where puffery is the only alleged representation |
| Strict liability & negligent recall; economic‑loss rule and preemption | Plaintiffs: tort remedies available for defective product and negligent recall; recall inadequacy actionable | Subaru: Economic‑loss rule bars tort recovery for purely economic harm; MVSA/NHTSA preempts state law remedies that scrutinize or effectively order recalls; primary jurisdiction/prudential mootness counsel abstention | Court: Strict‑liability claims dismissed for plaintiffs in states applying economic‑loss bar (CA, AL, FL, NJ for certain plaintiffs); Maryland public‑safety exception preserves claims there; negligent recall dismissed as preempted by MVSA (conflict preemption) but negligent‑undertaking dismissed for lack of injury; primary‑jurisdiction and prudential‑mootness arguments rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements and burden on plaintiff to establish injury‑in‑fact, causation, redressability)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards: courts accept well‑pleaded facts, not legal conclusions)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim pressed)
- Floyd v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 966 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2020) (interpretation of MMWA jurisdictional prerequisites informing courts’ approach)
- Winzler v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., 681 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2012) (prudential mootness analysis where manufacturer recall may moot equitable relief)