Laurens v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15940
7th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiffs Xavier and Khadija Laurens bought a 2016 Volvo XC90 T8 (plug-in hybrid) advertised to have 25 miles of battery range; they experienced ~8–10 miles and alleged Volvo’s advertising was misleading.
- Xavier filed a putative class action under CAFA seeking damages (including the $20,000 premium), $2,700 for a home charging station, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and fees.
- Xavier’s name did not appear on the purchase agreement or title; only Khadija was listed. Volvo sent Khadija a pre-suit letter offering a full refund upon return of the vehicle.
- Xavier was initially challenged for lack of standing; Khadija was later added as a plaintiff. Volvo moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing Khadija lacked standing because the pre-suit refund offer fully redressed her injury.
- The district court granted dismissal for lack of standing; the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding an unaccepted pre-suit offer does not eliminate a plaintiff’s Article III injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unaccepted pre‑suit offer of complete relief deprives a prospective plaintiff of standing | Laurens: An unaccepted offer does not preclude judicial relief; Khadija remained injured and could litigate | Volvo: Its pre‑suit offer fully redressed Khadija’s injury, so she lacked Article III standing when added | Held: Unaccepted pre‑suit offers are legal nullities; they do not eliminate injury‑in‑fact or standing (reversed) |
| Whether Xavier has injury‑in‑fact based on ownership/purchase | Laurens: Xavier relied on advertising and helped purchase/install charging equipment | Volvo: Xavier is not on the purchase agreement or title and lacks proof he purchased the vehicle | Held: Xavier failed to rebut Volvo’s factual challenge about purchase; no standing based on vehicle purchase |
| Whether Xavier has diversity/amount‑in‑controversy jurisdiction for the charging station claim | Laurens: Charging station purchase gives Xavier a concrete injury | Volvo: $2,700 is below §1332(a) jurisdictional threshold; CAFA not implicated for that individual claim | Held: The charging station claim alone appears below the $75,000 requirement and would not satisfy CAFA/§1332(a) |
| Whether the case may proceed if Khadija has standing | Laurens: If Khadija has live damages claim, case should proceed and may support supplemental jurisdiction over related claims | Volvo: (implicit) Pre‑suit offer eliminated Khadija’s claim so no basis to proceed | Held: Because Khadija’s injury remained unredressed (she did not accept the offer), the case survives; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell‑Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (an unaccepted offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s case in a putative class action)
- Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2017) (extension of Campbell‑Ewald holding to pretrial payments to a court registry)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (three‑part test for Article III standing)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (pleading requirements for injury‑in‑fact at the pleading stage)
- United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (Sup. Ct. 1980) (class claims may survive loss of named plaintiff’s individual stake)
- Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015) (Rule 12(b)(1) pleading standard on standing challenges)
- Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 572 F.3d 440 (7th Cir. 2009) (plaintiff bears burden to prove standing when defendant makes a factual challenge)
- St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (Sup. Ct. 1938) (amount‑in‑controversy legal‑certainty test)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (Sup. Ct. 2005) (supplemental jurisdiction over related claims)
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (discussion of mootness and offers)