Johnson v. FCA US LLC
| Decision Date | 17 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20-cv-12690 |
| Citation | 555 F.Supp.3d 488 |
| Parties | Dorthea JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Darryl Bressack, Nathan J. Fink, David H. Fink, Fink Bressack PLLC, Bloomfield Hills, MI, Edward Webb, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC, Atlanta, GA, Eric D. Barton, Wagstaff & Cartmell, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiffs Dorthea Johnson, Jason Player, Tom Vensky, Charles Wartelle.
Edward Webb, Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC, Atlanta, GA, Eric D. Barton, Wagstaff & Cartmell, Kansas City, MO, David H. Fink, Fink Bressack PLLC, Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Plaintiffs Francisco Fernandez, Andrew Bennett, Ryan Sturgill, Lois Miller.
Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Thompson Coburn LLP, Saint Louis, MO, Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Thompson Coburn LLP, Saint Louis, MS, Thomas J. Murray, King & Murray, PLLC, Birmingham, MI, for Defendant.
In this putative class action, Plaintiffs bring a variety of statutory and common-law claims against Defendant FCA US LLC ("FCA") arising out of an alleged defect in the interior trim panels of their FCA vehicles. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 14.) FCA has now moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims. (See Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 16.) For the reasons that follow, FCA's motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART .
FCA was one of the world's leading automakers. Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased 2014 model year and later "Chrysler 300s, Dodge Chargers, and Dodge Challengers sold in the United States" (the "Class Vehicles"). (Am. Compl. at ¶34, ECF No. 14, PageID.488.) According to Plaintiffs, the Class Vehicles suffer from an "inherent defect that results in interior trim panels (e.g., door panels, center console, dash console, kick panels) warping and pulling away from the vehicle frame" (the "Panel Defect"). (Id. at ¶1, PageID.479.) Plaintiffs explain that (Id. at ¶2, PageID.479.)
Plaintiffs claim that the Panel Defect causes two primary problems with the Class Vehicles. First, Plaintiffs say that the Panel Defect "creates a condition that is embarrassing and unsightly to those that have purchased or leased these expensive, high end muscle cars and luxury vehicles." (Id. at ¶4, PageID.480.) Second, Plaintiffs assert that the Panel Defect "raises serious safety concerns." (Id. )
More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that (Id. )
Finally, Plaintiffs claim that even though FCA "has known about the [Panel] Defect for many years" (id. at ¶5, PageID.480), FCA has "actively concealed the [Panel] Defect from customers and continued to market the [Class] Vehicles in a manner that misrepresented the quality of the defective interior trim." (Id. at ¶39, PageID.490.) Plaintiffs insist that "[h]ad [FCA] disclosed the truth, for example in its advertisements or other materials or communications, Plaintiffs and the class would have been aware of the [Panel] Defect and would not have bought or leased the [Class] Vehicles or would have paid less for them." (Id. at ¶95, PageID.531.)
Plaintiffs filed their Amended Class Action Complaint, the operative pleading in this action, on January 22, 2021. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 14.) The named Plaintiffs are as follows:
Plaintiffs bring claims against FCA for breach of express and implied warranties under state law and under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq. (the "MMWA"), fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of the consumer protection laws of various states. They seek to represent a class of nationwide plaintiffs and individual state-specific sub-classes.
FCA first moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims on December 14, 2020. (See Initial Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 10.) Rather than respond to that motion, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint that sought to remedy the pleading deficiencies identified by FCA. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 14.) On February 23, 2021, FCA moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 16.) The Court held a video hearing on the motion on July 20, 2021, and a second video hearing on August 6, 2021.
"To survive a motion to dismiss" under Rule 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). A claim is facially plausible when a plaintiff pleads factual content that permits a court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. See id. When assessing the sufficiency of a plaintiff's claim, a district court must accept all of a complaint's factual allegations as true. See Ziegler v. IBP Hog Mkt., Inc. , 249 F.3d 509, 512 (6th Cir. 2001). Mere "conclusions," however, Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. A plaintiff must therefore provide "more than labels and conclusions," or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" to survive a motion to dismiss. Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937.
FCA moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims on several different grounds. The Court will address each of FCA's bases for dismissal separately in the order that FCA presented them in its briefing.
FCA first argues that the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, MMWA, fraud, and unjust enrichment claims to the extent that Plaintiffs bring those claims on behalf of a nationwide class. (See Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 16, PageID.663-665.) FCA contends that even though the named Plaintiffs have Article III standing to assert these claims on their own behalf, they "lack [Article III] standing to pursue claims on a nationwide basis [because] they do not plead a single fact which arguably connects any one of their vehicle purchases or injuries to any state other than" their home states.1 (Id. , PageID.664.)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has not squarely decided whether a named plaintiff in a class action who has Article III standing to assert his own claims also has Article III standing to pursue claims on behalf of a nationwide class that arise under the laws of different states. This is a difficult and complicated question that has sharply divided courts in this district and across the country. Some courts treat a named plaintiff's attempt to raise claims under the laws of different states as an Article III problem that must be resolved at the pleading stage; other courts view it as a matter going to the propriety of class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 that is properly resolved in connection with class certification proceedings. See Withrow v. FCA US, LLC , 2021 WL 2529847, at ** 6-8 (E.D. Mich. June 21, 2021) ().
To the Court's knowledge, two federal courts of appeal have both addressed this issue and reached the same conclusion: "as long as the named plaintiffs have standing to sue the named defendants, any concern about whether it is proper for a class to include out-of-state, nonparty class members with claims subject to different state laws is a question of predominance under Rule 23(b)(3), not a question of [standing] under Article III." Langan v. Johnson & Johnson...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Armstrong v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
-
Harrison v. Gen. Motors
...issue is best suited to the commonality or typicality analysis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. See Johnson v. FCA U.S. LLC, 555 F.Supp.3d 488, 499 (E.D. Mich. 2021); Gamboa v. Ford Motor Co., 381 F.Supp.3d 853, 884 (E.D. Mich. 2019). This Court has previously declined to follow th......
-
In re Chevrolet Bolt EV Battery Litig.
...one position. Another recent decision by Judge Leitman, similarly persuasive, represents the other position. Johnson v. FCA U.S. LLC, 555 F.Supp.3d 488 (E.D. Mich. 2021). In Johnson, Judge Leitman acknowledged the Withrow decision, but explained that two federal courts of appeal-the Second ......
-
Kiriacopoulos v. Gen. Motors
... ... Id ... As ... Plaintiffs correctly argue, see Br. in Supp. Resp. at 39, ... GM's argument is properly suited for consideration at the ... Rule 23 class certification stage, not the pleading stage ... See Johnson v. FCA U.S. LLC , 555 F.Supp.3d 488, 495 ... (E.D. Mich. 2021) (holding that plaintiffs, who alleged ... warranty claims under various states' laws, could assert ... claims on behalf of a nationwide class under the laws of ... states other than their own at the ... ...