David Faltermeier v. FCA US LLC
899 F.3d 617
8th Cir.2018Background
- NHTSA investigated 2002–2007 Jeep Liberty and 1993–1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles for an alleged rear-crash fire defect and requested a recall in June 2013; FCA publicly disputed the defect and later agreed to a limited recall to install trailer-hitch assemblies.
- David Faltermeier purchased a 2003 Jeep Liberty in August 2013 from a third-party seller and did not see FCA’s press releases before purchase.
- Faltermeier filed a putative Missouri class action (June 2015) under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), alleging FCA’s statements that the vehicles were “safe” and “not defective” were deceptive and that the trailer-hitch remedy was inadequate; he sought benefit-of-the-bargain/diminution or cost-of-repair damages.
- FCA removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA); Faltermeier moved to remand arguing the amount in controversy did not exceed $5,000,000 because cost-of-repair per vehicle was low and attorneys’ fees could be limited.
- The district court denied remand, finding by a preponderance of evidence that aggregated repair damages plus likely attorneys’ fees could exceed $5,000,000; later the court granted summary judgment for FCA, holding Faltermeier lacked a factual nexus showing the alleged misrepresentations were made “in connection with” his purchase.
- This appeal challenges both CAFA jurisdiction and the summary judgment ruling; the Eighth Circuit affirmed both the denial of remand and the grant of summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAFA amount-in-controversy | Faltermeier: damages measured by cost of repair (≈ $320/vehicle) → aggregate < $5M; attorneys’ fees can be stipulated lower | FCA: aggregated benefit-of-the-bargain or repair-cost damages plus likely attorneys’ fees satisfy $5M threshold; stipulation on fees before certification doesn’t defeat CAFA | Court: Aggregated repair damages ($3.6M) plus probable attorneys’ fees (> $1.4M) could exceed $5M; CAFA jurisdiction exists |
| MMPA “in connection with” requirement | Faltermeier: FCA’s public misrepresentations about vehicle safety were actionable MMPA conduct related to his purchase | FCA: No evidence the dealer or Faltermeier knew of or relied on FCA’s statements; no factual nexus between statements and the transaction | Court: Summary judgment for FCA — plaintiff failed to show a factual connection between the alleged misrepresentations and his purchase |
Key Cases Cited
- Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588 (pre-certification stipulations do not necessarily defeat CAFA jurisdiction)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (procedure for resolving contested amount-in-controversy allegations)
- Morehouse v. Behlmann Pontiac-GMC Truck Serv., Inc., 31 S.W.3d 55 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000) (repair costs may support MMPA actual damages)
- Berry v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., 397 S.W.3d 425 (Mo. 2013) (substantial attorneys’ fees awarded in protracted class litigation, relevant to fee-estimate analysis)