376 F. Supp. 3d 751
E.D. Mich.2019Background
- Plaintiff James McKee sued GM alleging 2015–17 GMC Canyon and Chevrolet Colorado vehicles have a defective 6L50 transmission causing slipping, jerking, delayed shifts, sudden acceleration, and eventual failure.
- Claims asserted: breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Magnuson‑Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), common‑law fraud (omissions), violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), and unjust enrichment; class proposed nationwide and for Florida.
- GM moved to dismiss; Court considered pleadings and oral argument and resolved a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
- Court held plaintiff lacks standing to pursue a nationwide class because he alleged injury only in Florida; proceeded to adjudicate claims on behalf of the Florida class.
- Court interpreted GM’s New Vehicle Warranty to cover “any vehicle defect” except for slight noise, vibrations, or other normal characteristics related to materials or workmanship, and concluded that the complaint plausibly alleges a covered defect.
- Court dismissed plaintiff’s implied warranty, fraud, FDUTPA, and unjust enrichment claims, while allowing breach of express warranty and MMWA claims to proceed for plaintiff and the Florida class.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for nationwide class | McKee represents nationwide owners; claims on behalf of all Class Vehicles | GM: named plaintiff must show personal injury in each state to assert other states' claims | Dismissed: McKee alleged injury only in Florida, so no standing for nationwide class |
| Choice of law | Florida law applies because plaintiff bought vehicle in Florida and class is Florida-based | GM did not dispute Florida law | Florida law governs; Michigan law displaced under choice‑of‑law rules |
| Express warranty coverage | Warranty covers "any vehicle defect"; Transmission Defect pleaded as design and/or manufacturing defect | Warranty covers only defects in materials or workmanship (manufacturing defects), not design defects | Denied dismissal: warranty construed to cover any vehicle defect except specified "normal characteristics"; plaintiff plausibly alleged a covered defect (design or abnormal manufacturing) |
| Fraud / FDUTPA (omissions) | GM knew of defect (NHTSA complaints, online complaints, internal testing/warranty data) and omitted disclosure | GM: allegations are conclusory and insufficient to plead pre‑sale knowledge; many complaints post‑date purchase | Dismissed: Rule 9(b) not satisfied — plaintiff failed to plead specifically GM’s pre‑sale knowledge; FDUTPA claim likewise fails |
| Implied warranty & unjust enrichment | Implied warranty alleged; unjust enrichment alleged as alternative relief | GM: no privity for implied warranty; express warranty governs so unjust enrichment unavailable | Dismissed implied warranty (no privity pleaded) and unjust enrichment (express warranty governs) |
| MMWA | Federal remedy for breach of express warranty | GM: depends on state-law warranty claim failing | Survives: MMWA claim stands because express warranty claim survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941) (federal courts apply forum state choice‑of‑law rules)
- Sutherland v. Kennington Truck Serv., Ltd., 454 Mich. 274 (1997) (Michigan two‑step choice‑of‑law analysis)
- Bassett v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 528 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2008) (motion to dismiss standard)
- Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2009) (pleading requirements to survive dismissal)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (named plaintiff must allege personal injury to establish standing for class representation)
- Sanchez‑Knutson v. Ford Motor Co., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1223 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (Florida privity rule for implied warranty)