Garcia v. Chrysler Grp. LLC

• Decision Date: 01 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–cv–8926 (KBF).,14–cv–8926 (KBF).
• Citation: 127 F.Supp.3d 212
• Parties: Franklyn Cabrera GARCIA et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC n/k/a FCA U.S. LLC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

127 F.Supp.3d 212

Franklyn Cabrera GARCIA et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CHRYSLER GROUP LLC n/k/a FCA U.S. LLC, Defendant.

No. 14–cv–8926 (KBF).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed Sept. 1, 2015.

127 F.Supp.3d 215

Christopher Barton Dalbey, Weitz and Luxenburg, P.C., Los Angeles, CA, Curt D. Marshall, Robin Greenwald, Weitz & Luxenberg, New York, NY, David Brian Fernandes, Jr., Mark Philip Pifko, Roland Karim Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Encino, CA, Kirsten Soto, Baron & Budd, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.

Carl J. Schaerf, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, New York, NY, John W. Rogers, Kathy A. Wisniewski, Scott Harston Morgan, Thompson Coburn LLP, Saint Louis, MO, Stephen Anthony D'Aunoy, Thomas and Libowitz, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant.

OPINION & ORDER

KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge:

Defendant FCA U.S. LLC, more commonly known as "Chrysler," manufactures vehicles that have a key component known as the "Totally Integrated Power Module," or "TIPM." The TIPM functions as

127 F.Supp.3d 216

a vehicle's electronic nerve center, and it is responsible for controlling and distributing power to all of the vehicle's electrical functions, including its ignition and safety systems, fuel pump, airbags, windshield wipers, turn signals, and headlights and taillights. Plaintiffs allege that a common defect in their vehicles' TIPMs infected 65 different model-years (referred to separately as a "Class Vehicle") of vehicles manufactured over a period of five model-years.

Plaintiffs commenced this action on November 10, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) Twelve plaintiffs from eleven different states¹ have brought, on behalf of themselves and as purported class representatives, 38 causes of action under the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., and the laws of Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, South Dakota and Texas (the "Subclass States").² (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 283–746, ECF No. 37.) Plaintiffs purport

127 F.Supp.3d 217

to bring claims on behalf of all U.S. residents who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle equipped with Chrysler's seventh-generation TIPM ("TIPM–7") and they define nine putative subclasses of plaintiffs who made their purchase or signed their lease in any of the Subclass States. (Am. Compl. ¶ 269.) Plaintiffs seek damages, an order requiring Chrysler to adequately disclose and remedy the TIPM defect, and an injunction against Chrysler incorporating the defective TIPM into its vehicles, as well as interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. (Am. Compl. at 165.) Chrysler has moved to dismiss all claims.³

All claims are based on the same general set of facts—that plaintiffs owned vehicles with defective TIPMs and that Chrysler is liable under various warranty theories as well as state fraud and consumer protection laws. The Amended Complaint—though prolix—contains a number of deficiencies including a lack of sufficient allegations as to (1) whether the TIPM defects manifested within the time and mileage limits of the alleged warranties, (2) notice, (3) whether any breach may be plausibly construed as arising from a manufacturing defect, and (4) whether Chrysler had a duty to disclose the TIPM defects to plaintiffs. For these reasons, and the additional reasons set forth below, Chrysler's motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.⁴

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background⁵

1. The TIPM and the alleged defect.

A TIPM consists of a printed circuit board-based module containing fuses, internal relays, and a microprocessor, and it functions as a vehicle's electronic nerve center. (Am. Compl. ¶ 2.) When a vehicle's TIPM fails, almost any part of the vehicle can function improperly or cease functioning—as plaintiffs colorfully describe it, the car becomes "possessed." (Am. Compl. ¶ 6.) For instance, a TIPM failure can cause vehicle stalling, unintended acceleration, sudden loss of electricity, inability to turn the vehicle off, sudden loss of headlights and taillights, inability to shut off the fuel pump, loss of security or ignition systems, airbag non-deployment, vehicle fire, and loss of control of windshield wipers and turn signals. (Am. Compl. ¶ 15.) A defective TIPM cannot reasonably be repaired, and so it must be replaced at significant cost. (Am. Comp. ¶¶ 3, 7.)

Plaintiffs allege that the TIPM–7 is prone to sudden failure well before the end of the useful life of the vehicles in which it is installed. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 38.) Many consumers have allegedly spent hundreds to thousands of dollars on TIPM repairs, as well as other unnecessary repairs—including replacing batteries, fuel pumps, and wireless ignition modules—in the

127 F.Supp.3d 218

hopes of fixing problems created by defective TIPMs. (Am. Compl. ¶ 120.)

Chrysler has allegedly known of the TIPM defect since at least 2007, based on consumer complaints submitted to Chrysler and to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"), multiple TIPM-related recalls and technical service bulletins, two NHTSA investigations into TIPM-related complaints, prerelease vehicle testing, and post-sale data about the performance of and repairs made to Chrysler's vehicles. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 47, 109.)

2. Class vehicles.

Plaintiffs assert claims as to 65 separate "Class Vehicles." According to plaintiffs, all of the vehicles share a common TIPM defect. (Am. Compl. ¶ 294.) The Class Vehicles comprise the following makes and model years:

Chrysler Dodge Jeep

• Chrysler 200 (2012–2013)	• Dodge Avenger (2012–13)	• Jeep Cherokee (2011)
Chrysler Grand Voyager (2010–2014)	• Dodge Caravan (2010–2012)	• Jeep Grand Cherokee (2011–2012)
Chrysler Sebring (2011–2013)	• Dodge Durango (2011–2013)	• Jeep Liberty (2010–2012)
Chrysler Town & Country (2010–2014)	• Dodge Grand Caravan (2010–2014)	Jeep Wrangler (2010–2014)6

(Am. Compl. ¶ 3.)

3. Warranties.

Plaintiffs allege that their vehicles were covered by several warranties including warranties implied under state law as well as the following express warranties: the Basic Limited Warranty, the Vehicle Protection Plan warranty, the Maximum Care Coverage warranty, an extended powertrain warranty and an extended warranty from an unspecified source.

When originally sold, plaintiffs' vehicles were covered by Chrysler's Basic Limited

127 F.Supp.3d 219

Warranty. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 123.) The Basic Limited Warranty covers defects in "material, workmanship or factory preparation" that existed when the vehicle left the manufacturing plant in all parts other than tires and headphones for 36 months or for 36,000 miles on the odometer, whichever occurred first. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 123–24.) Thus, the Basic Limited Warranty limits state law implied warranties "to the extent allowed by law, to the time periods covered by the express written warranties." (Am. Compl. ¶ 125.) Notably, it does not cover design defects.

Certified Pre–Owned Vehicles come with a "Maximum Care Coverage" warranty, which applies for the first 3 months of ownership or 3,000 miles on the odometer, running from the date of ownership or the expiration of the Basic Limited Warranty, whichever is more beneficial to the customer. (Am. Compl. ¶ 128.)

One named plaintiff, Danielson, alleges that he and other members of the Class purchased extended warranty plans from dealers called "Vehicle Protection Plans," which extended their original warranties to cover up to 100,000 miles and provided varying coverage depending on the coverage level chosen. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 126, 166.) The Vehicle Protection Plans included the "Silver Coverage," "Gold Coverage," "Gold Plus Coverage," and "Platinum" plans. (Am. Compl. ¶ 126.) Danielson purchased a Silver Coverage Vehicle Protection Plan, which covered his vehicle's electrical components, including his TIPM. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 126, 166.)

One named plaintiff, Tamburello, alleges that she also purchased an extended warranty from an unspecified source that was "valid for 7 years or 85,000 miles, whichever came first."⁷ (Am. Compl. ¶ 241.) Another named plaintiff, Franklin, alleges that she purchased an "extended powertrain warranty" at the time she purchased her vehicle.⁸ (Am. Compl. ¶ 181.) Neither plaintiff alleges further details in relation to these...