418 F.Supp.3d 1173
S.D. Fla.2019Background:
- Plaintiff Douglas Weiss bought a new 2015 Chevrolet Silverado and alleges a widespread defective aluminum driveshaft (“Chevy Shake”) that causes violent vibration at highway speeds and can lead to loss of control and eventual driveshaft failure.
- Plaintiff sues on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a Florida subclass covering various 2014–present GM truck/SUV models that allegedly share the same driveshaft defect.
- Allegations of GM knowledge include customer complaints (NHTSA and online), repeated dealer encounters, and GM service bulletins acknowledging driveshaft-related vibrations and dents.
- Claims asserted: Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act (Count I, nationwide), breach of express warranty (Count II, Florida subclass), breach of implied warranties (Count III, Florida subclass), and FDUTPA (Count IV, Florida subclass); GM moved to dismiss.
- Court: denied dismissal of Counts II–IV as to the Florida subclass; limited Count I (Magnuson–Moss) to the Florida subclass only; dismissed nationwide class claims for lack of standing.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to represent class(es) | Weiss: all class vehicles share the same architecture/drive shaft so he can represent purchasers of other GM models and years; standing challenge premature. | GM: Weiss only owned a 2015 Silverado; Article III requires a named plaintiff to have standing for each class claim and product; cannot assert claims for out-of-state purchasers. | Court: At pleading stage Weiss has standing to represent the Florida subclass (alleged same part across models/years) but lacks standing to assert claims on behalf of purchasers outside Florida or for a nationwide class; nationwide claims dismissed. |
| Breach of express warranty (Count II) | Weiss: Powertrain 5yr/100k warranty covers vehicle defects (not limited to workmanship) and his truck was within the Powertrain warranty when presented. | GM: Warranty covers only defects in materials/workmanship, not design defects; Plaintiff may be outside warranty limits. | Court: Rejects GM’s strained reading; warranty reasonably covers vehicle defects and Count II survives as pleaded under the 5yr/100k Powertrain warranty. |
| Breach of implied warranties (Count III) | Weiss: Privity exists because he bought from an authorized GM dealer and is an intended third-party beneficiary; the vehicle is unmerchantable because of safety/drivability defect. | GM: No privity with manufacturer when purchase is through dealer; vehicle was still operable so not unmerchantable. | Court: Accepts third-party beneficiary theory at this stage and finds the complaint plausibly alleges unmerchantability; Count III survives. |
| FDUTPA (Count IV): pleading standard, knowledge, and injunctive relief | Weiss: FDUTPA does not fall under Rule 9(b); alleges GM knew of defect before purchase (NHTSA, service bulletins, complaints); FDUTPA allows declaratory/injunctive relief. | GM: FDUTPA claim sounds in fraud so Rule 9(b) applies; Weiss failed to plead GM’s knowledge at time of purchase; injunctive relief not proper absent ongoing injury. | Court: Holds Rule 9(b) does not apply to FDUTPA claims; allegations suffice to plead GM’s knowledge; injunctive/declaratory relief permitted under FDUTPA statutory grant; Count IV survives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim).
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints).
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III injury-in-fact requirement).
- Prado-Steiman ex rel. Prado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2000) (named plaintiff must establish standing for each class subclaim).
- Brown v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 817 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2016) (Magnuson–Moss claims are based on state law).
- Mesa v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 904 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (privity requirement for implied warranty under Florida law).
- Hetrick v. Ideal Image Dev. Corp., [citation="372 F. App'x 985"] (11th Cir.) (FDUTPA scope broader than common-law fraud).
- Melton v. Cent. Arms, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 3d 1290 (S.D. Fla.) (Magnuson–Moss claim depends on viable warranty claim).