Pyskaty v. Wide World of Cars, LLC
856 F.3d 216
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- In Oct. 2013 Pyskaty bought a certified pre‑owned 2010 BMW from Wide World of Cars (WWC) for $51,195, financing part through BMW Bank.
- The salesman represented the car had no accident history and showed a CARFAX report; within weeks the vehicle exhibited numerous defects and safety problems.
- Pyskaty paid for repairs without success, later obtained an AutoCheck report showing a prior rear‑end collision, and took the vehicle off the road.
- She sued WWC and BMW Bank under the Magnuson‑Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) for breach of express and implied warranties, seeking actual damages or rescission/revocation under the MMWA; she also alleged New York state law claims (fraud, GBL §§349/350, warranty).
- WWC moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, arguing the MMWA $50,000 amount‑in‑controversy requirement was not met; the district court granted the motion. Pyskaty appealed.
- The Second Circuit reversed, holding Pyskaty’s rescission claim under the MMWA could satisfy the $50,000 jurisdictional threshold and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether punitive damages can be added to meet MMWA $50,000 threshold | Pyskaty sought leave to amend to include punitive damages under the MMWA to reach $50,000 | WWC argued punitive damages are unavailable and amendment is futile | Denied: amendment futile; punitive damages cannot be counted toward jurisdictional amount |
| Whether rescission value can be used to meet MMWA $50,000 threshold | Rescission of the purchase contract (full contract price) should be valued as the object of litigation, which exceeds $50,000 | WWC argued remedies were contractually limited to repair/replacement per the warranty and UCC §2‑719, so rescission isn’t available | Held for Pyskaty: rescission (contract price) may be counted and exceeds $50,000; dismissal was improper |
| Proper measure of amount in controversy for equitable relief under MMWA | Contract price (amount paid) should measure rescission value | District court measured by current value of the vehicle (much less than contract price) | Second Circuit adopts contract‑price approach (as in Third/Sixth Circuits) — use contract’s entire value without offset |
| Whether state‑law claims may be aggregated into MMWA amount in controversy | Pyskaty contended all claims may be aggregated to compute $50,000 | WWC argued state claims should not be counted | Court did not decide aggregation because MMWA rescission alone sufficed to meet threshold |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. Abrams, 899 F.2d 1315 (2d Cir. 1990) (describing MMWA’s consumer‑protection purpose)
- Colavito v. N.Y. Organ Donor Network, Inc., 438 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2006) (presumption that complaint’s stated damages are in good faith; defendant must show to a legal certainty plaintiff cannot recover amount)
- St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (Sup. Ct.) (standard that dismissal requires legal certainty that plaintiff cannot recover jurisdictional amount)
- Rosen v. Chrysler Corp., 205 F.3d 918 (6th Cir. 2000) (rescission claim value for amount‑in‑controversy measured by contract price without offset)