546 F.Supp.3d 635
E.D. Mich.2021Background
- Plaintiffs are eight current and former owners/lessees of 2018–2019 Jeep Wranglers who allege a recurring front-end steering defect known as the “Death Wobble.”
- The symptom: violent steering/vehicle oscillation after hitting bumps at speed; plaintiffs say it is caused by defective solid front axle suspension components (e.g., inadequate rubber bushings).
- FCA acknowledged steering complaints and launched Customer Satisfaction Notification V41 (CSN V41) offering an updated steering damper and reimbursements; plaintiffs allege the repair often failed to cure the problem.
- Plaintiffs assert claims under the Magnuson‑Moss Warranty Act and multiple state warranty and consumer‑protection statutes; the two actions were consolidated and FCA moved to dismiss.
- The Court denied dismissal in part and granted it in part: several state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice; nationwide MMWA claims were narrowed to states where a named plaintiff asserts a valid warranty claim; most warranty and fraud-based claims survived at the pleading stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / class scope for model‑year 2020 vehicles | Plaintiffs say their individual standing suffices and class scope is a Rule 23 issue | FCA argued plaintiffs lack standing to represent owners of 2020 models they did not buy | Court: defer class‑scope issue to class‑certification; individual standing exists for plaintiffs’ own vehicles (Fallick principle) |
| Mootness from FCA repair program (CSN V41) | Plaintiffs allege repeated repair failures; relief still needed | FCA argued recall/repair + reimbursement moots claims | Court: not moot — effectiveness of repair is factual and implicates merits; jurisdiction exists and merits will be decided later |
| Breach of express warranty (design vs workmanship; adequacy of repairs) | Plaintiffs plead manufacturing and design defects in the alternative and allege repairs failed | FCA says warranties cover only materials/workmanship and CSN V41 cures defect | Court: claims survive; pleading both theories is permissible and alleged unsuccessful repairs support breach claims (except Hancock re: express warranty) |
| Breach of implied warranty / privity & notice (CA, GA, NC, MN, TN) | Plaintiffs argue implied‑warranty claims survive: vehicles not merchantable for safe use; notice/privity satisfied by dealer repairs, letters, arbitration | FCA contends lack of privity or inadequate notice under certain state laws | Court: implied‑warranty claims survive for most plaintiffs; CA third‑party beneficiary exception allowed; GA privity satisfied; NC implied‑warranty claim dismissed for Schafer for privity/abandonment; Tennessee claim dismissed for lack of alleged notice of breach |
| Fraud/consumer‑protection claims (omissions) — Rule 9(b) | Plaintiffs allege FCA knew of susceptibility and omitted to disclose; plaintiffs set out who/what/when/where/how (mostly) | FCA says omissions not pleaded with requisite particularity and denies pre‑sale knowledge | Court: with one exception (Schafer), plaintiffs met Rule 9(b) for omission claims; FCA conceded steering shimmy knowledge at hearing, aiding pre‑sale knowledge pleading |
| State‑statute defenses: class‑action bans, remedies, and limitations | Plaintiffs: class relief and injunctive/remedial relief are available in federal forum and claims timely | FCA: some statutes bar class actions, limit relief to injunctive relief only, or have strict notice/limitations | Court: class‑action prohibitions treated as procedural and do not bar federal class claims; several state claims dismissed without prejudice where statutory prerequisites (e.g., no monetary relief or lack of ongoing harm, Tennessee notice) not met at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Gentek Bldg. Prods. v. Sherwin‑Williams Co., 491 F.3d 320 (6th Cir. 2007) (distinguishes facial vs factual attacks on subject‑matter jurisdiction and when jurisdictional inquiry implicates merits)
- Fallick v. Nationwide Ins. Mut. Co., 162 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 1998) (once plaintiff has individual standing, representativeness of a putative class is for Rule 23)
- Hadley v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, [citation="624 F. App'x 374"] (6th Cir.) (recall/repair programs may render claims moot if repairs indisputably cure defect)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (apply plausibility and accept well‑pleaded factual allegations)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (analyzing whether state procedural rules conflict with Federal Rule 23)
- Temple v. Fleetwood Enters., [citation="133 F. App'x 254"] (6th Cir. 2005) (elements of MMWA claims, including cure attempts)
- Beck v. FCA US LLC, 273 F. Supp. 3d 735 (E.D. Mich. 2017) (application of Rule 9(b) to fraud claims based on omissions in vehicle‑defect context)
- In re FCA US LLC Monostable Elec. Gearshift Litig., 280 F. Supp. 3d 975 (E.D. Mich. 2017) (pleading design vs manufacturing defect at the motion‑to‑dismiss stage)