656 F. App'x 232
6th Cir.2016Background
- Owners of 2004–2008 Chrysler Pacifica (named plaintiffs and putative class) alleged engine cradles prematurely rusted/corroded, causing safety risks and out-of-pocket repair costs.
- FCA (successor to Chrysler/Old Carco) issued Technical Service Bulletins (Oct 2010, Mar 2012) and a Nov 9, 2010 letter extending warranty to some owners; plaintiffs did not allege they received that letter and none of the named plaintiffs’ vehicles fell within FCA’s identified six-week manufacturing window for the extended warranty.
- Plaintiffs sued for failure to warn and failure to repair under state law and sought class certification; district court denied a pre-discovery summary-judgment motion as premature but later granted FCA’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the summary-judgment denial established law of the case and that their pleadings sufficiently alleged (1) FCA voluntarily undertook repair obligations, (2) an economic relationship imposing a duty to warn, or (3) successor knowledge creating a duty to warn.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed: plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing FCA assumed a duty to repair, had a sufficient economic relationship to impose a duty to warn, or that any failure to warn proximately caused their economic injuries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Law of the case: Did denial of pre-discovery summary judgment bar later Rule 12(c) relief? | Denial of summary judgment established law of the case preventing dismissal. | Denial was without prejudice and premised on lack of discovery; it did not decide the sufficiency of the pleadings. | Denial without prejudice did not establish law of the case; Rule 12(c) still proper. |
| Voluntary undertaking to repair | FCA issued (then rescinded) an extended warranty (via TSB/letter) and thereby assumed repair duties. | Plaintiffs never pleaded they received the letter or that TSBs extended warranty to them; no facts showing FCA assumed duty. | Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts that FCA voluntarily undertook a duty to repair. |
| Economic-relationship duty to warn | FCA’s post-bankruptcy actions (warranty extension/servicing) show it entered a commercial relationship creating a duty to warn former Chrysler owners. | Succession alone does not create duty; plaintiffs lacked any servicing/warranty relationship or other economic tie with FCA. | No actionable economic relationship pleaded; duty to warn on that basis not imposed. |
| Successor knowledge and causation | FCA had knowledge of predecessor’s defect, which imposes a duty to warn; failure to warn caused plaintiffs’ losses. | Even if FCA knew, plaintiffs’ injuries were economic (repair costs) caused by the defect itself, not by lack of post-sale warnings. | Court need not decide whether knowledge alone creates duty; plaintiffs failed to plead proximate causation between any failure to warn and their economic injuries, so claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mussivand v. David, 544 N.E.2d 265 (Ohio 1989) (duty is a question of law for the court to decide)
- Flaugher v. Cone Automatic Machine Co., 507 N.E.2d 331 (Ohio 1987) (successor has no duty to warn of predecessor’s defects absent actual or constructive knowledge)
- Burton v. Chrysler Group, LLC (In re Old Carco LLC), 492 B.R. 392 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013) (successor duty-to-warn may arise only upon factors like assuming service contracts, servicing machines, awareness of defect, and knowing owners’ identities)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2007) (standard for Rule 12(c) identical to Rule 12(b)(6))