Park v. Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 13 February 2004
• Docket Number: No. 2002-575-Appeal.,2002-575-Appeal.
• Citation: 844 A.2d 687
• Parties: John M. PARK v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

844 A.2d 687

John M. PARK v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY.

No. 2002-575-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

February 13, 2004.

Christopher M. Lefebvre, Pawtucket, for Plaintiff.

Brian Anderson (non RI), for Defendant.

Present: WILLIAMS, C.J., FLANDERS, GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, and SUTTELL, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, John M. Park (Park), appeals from a Superior Court judgment dismissing his complaint for compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and class certification because Ford Motor Company (Ford) failed to provide him with a "SecuriLock" system on a Ford Ranger truck that he purchased from Rizzo Ford, Inc. (Rizzo Ford). The hearing justice dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under G.L.1956 § 8-2-14.

This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument pursuant to an order directing the parties to show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not summarily be decided. After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the record and the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown, and proceed to decide the appeal at this time. We reverse the judgment of the Superior Court and remand the record in this case for further proceedings in line with this opinion.

Facts and Travel

On January 26, 2001, Park purchased a new 2001 Ford Ranger 2.5L pickup truck from Rizzo Ford in North Providence, Rhode Island. The Monroney window sticker on the truck listed the "SecuriLock" antitheft system as a standard feature. The Monroney sticker is a federally required window sticker that lists the model of the vehicle, the manufacturer's suggested retail price, the equipment it contains, and its fuel economy ratings. Park claims that his decision to purchase the 2001 Ranger was based, in part, on the inclusion of the antitheft system as a standard feature. Since 1997, SecuriLock has been provided as standard equipment on most Ford vehicles, and has been available as an option for about $100 on other vehicles. The SecuriLock antitheft system consists of a computer chip embedded in the automobile key. The chip is programmed with one of 72 billion codes. A vehicle equipped with SecuriLock will not operate unless an electronic module inside the engine recognizes the correct code.

One day after he bought the Ranger, Park noticed that no dashboard light came on when he attempted to activate the system. Park took his truck back to Rizzo Ford and discovered that his Ford Ranger was not equipped with the SecuriLock system. Park complained about the missing system to Rizzo Ford's service department and manager. He was told that an area representative would contact him about the problem. He was not contacted. Upon complaining to Rizzo Ford's service manager again, Park was told that he should have received a letter offering an oil change as compensation. Park had not received that letter, however. Park then lodged a complaint with the Ford Motor Company customer service hot line. Ford blamed the problem on Rizzo Ford. Predictably, Rizzo Ford blamed Ford Motor Company for the mistake. Subsequently, on March 19, 2001, the sales department at Rizzo Ford explained that the area representative had made a decision to offer Park a free oil change as compensation for the mistake.

On March 23, 2001, Ford contacted Park to acknowledge that there was a misprint on the window sticker and the Ranger was not designated to be equipped with SecuriLock. On January 12, 2001, before Park purchased the Ranger, Ford issued a form letter to all retail dealers explaining that "[p]rinted materials, including the vehicle MSRP Window Label, incorrectly stated that standard equipment for the 2001 Rangers equipped with a 2.5L I4 engine included the SecuriLock feature. * * * These vehicles are not equipped with this feature." The letter further explained that all owners of the 2001 Ranger with a 2.5L I4 engine "will receive a free oil and filter change certificate."

On April 17, 2001, a Rizzo Ford representative informed Park that, indeed, there was no SecuriLock in his Ranger, and offered Park $200 toward a different security system. Rizzo also offered Park a free filter and oil change. Rizzo further informed Park that it would be unable to retrofit the Ranger with the SecuriLock system. Park rejected Rizzo's offer to install a comparable security system along with Ford's offer of a filter and an oil change.

Park filed suit against Ford on May 17, 2001, seeking compensatory and injunctive relief. In his second amended complaint, Park alleges violation of the Magnuson Moss Consumer Products Warranty Act (Magnuson Moss Act), 15 U.S.C. § 2310, breach of implied warranty under § 2-314(2)(f) of the Uniform Commercial Code, breach of express warranty under § 2-313 of the Uniform Commercial Code, and consumer fraud under § 3 of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann., §§ 445.901 through 445.922 (West 2002) and G.L. 1956 chapter 13.1 of title 6, the Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA or the act).

Park's complaint also seeks class certification pursuant to Rule 23(a)(b)(3) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. With respect to the alleged violations of the Magnuson Moss Act, he seeks to represent all persons in the United States who purchased a vehicle from Ford on or after a date four years before this action was filed that left the manufacturing plant with a Monroney sticker, stating that the vehicle was equipped with a SecuriLock system, but in fact was not. With respect to the alleged breach of express and implied warranties under the Uniform Commercial Code, he seeks to represent a proposed class consisting of all people in the United States, excluding Arizona and Idaho, who purchased any new Ford vehicle within four years prior to the filing of the action, which vehicle left the manufacturing plant with a Monroney sticker stating that it was equipped with a SecuriLock system, when in fact it was not, and when the sticker had not been replaced with a sticker so indicating. Finally, with respect to the Michigan and Rhode Island consumer fraud claims, Park seeks to represent a proposed national class of similarly situated consumer purchasers of Ford vehicles whose purchases occurred on or after a date six years before this action was filed. He also seeks to certify a subclass of Rhode Island residents who satisfy the above criteria.

Park also filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, to which Ford objected. On August 28, 2002, the hearing justice issued a written decision, from which Park timely appealed.

Discussion

The hearing justice dismissed sua sponte Park's claims for damages pursuant to § 8-2-14 for failure to plead the jurisdictional minimum of $5,000. Moreover, finding no basis for injunctive relief, he ruled that the Superior Court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to § 8-2-13. Section 8-2-14(a) gives the Superior Court original jurisdiction in all actions of law "in which the amount in controversy shall exceed the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000); and shall also have concurrent original jurisdiction with the district court in all other actions at law in which the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000) * * *." The SecuriLock system is valued at less than $200. The hearing justice determined that Ford's failure to include the feature in its standard package alone would not confer jurisdiction on the Superior Court because the purported class claims were divisible, and as such did not meet the minimum jurisdictional amount when the claims were taken separately.

The hearing justice based his decision on this Court's ruling in Carvalho v. Coletta, 457 A.2d 614 (R.I.1983). In that case, we adopted the United States Supreme Court's standard concerning the aggregation of individual claims in a class action. Id. at 616 (citing Pinel v. Pinel, 240 U.S. 594, 596, 36 S.Ct. 416, 60 L.Ed. 817 (1916)). In accord with the United States Supreme Court, we announced that "when two or more plaintiffs having separate and distinct claims unite in a single suit, each demand must meet the jurisdictional amount." Carvalho, 457 A.2d at 616. This Court in Carvalho dismissed an attempted class action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when a car owner attempted to join his claim for conversion with other car owners who had their cars towed by a towing company. Id. at 615-16. We ruled that each member of the purported class "would have a distinct claim against defendant for towing their cars making aggregation inappropriate." Id. at 616. Furthermore, the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case once the claims were severed because the class representative did not have a claim that met the jurisdictional amount. Id.

In the present case, the hearing justice found that each individual claim was divisible "because each vehicle purchase represent[ed] separate rights reserved for each customer." He concluded, "[t]he customers do not share one common right against Ford." Thus, in order for [the Superior Court] to maintain subject-matter jurisdiction over the proposed class action, each individual member of the class must have a claim for at least $5,000 against Ford." In this case, Park conceded that the compensatory damages for each potential class member were no more than $200.

Next, the hearing justice found no basis for plaintiff's prayer for injunctive relief. The Superior Court has exclusive jurisdiction over issues of equity, such as issuing an injunction, under § 8-2-13. The hearing justice found that "there [was] an adequate remedy at law to compensate the proposed class members for their damages in this case." Furthermore, the hearing justice found that there was no need to enjoin Ford from continuing to sell vehicles with defective window stickers because plaintiff did not allege that Ford continued to sell vehicles with defective stickers...