Reynolds v. FCA US LLC

Decision Date30 June 2021
Docket NumberCase No. 19-11745
Citation546 F.Supp.3d 635
Parties Clair REYNOLDS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, Dennis A. Lienhardt, Sharon S. Almonrode, William Kalas, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Rochester, MI, Simon Bahne Paris, Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett and Bendesky PC, Horsham, PA, for Plaintiff Clair Reynolds.

E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Rochester, MI, for Plaintiffs Monica Martirano, William Martin Powers, Trina Hancock, Brady Laing, Jared Thomas Pineda, Ken Schafer.

Kathy A. Wisniewski, Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Thompson Coburn LLP, Saint Louis, MO, Patrick G. Seyferth, Bush, Seyferth & Paige, Troy, MI, Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Thompson Coburn LLP, Saint Louis, MS, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS [26, 34]

Arthur J. Tarnow, Senior United States District Judge

In this consolidated putative class action, Plaintiffs, eight current and former Jeep Wrangler owners, bring claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. , and several state warranty and consumer fraud statutes, against Defendant, FCA US LLC, the designer and manufacturer of Jeep vehicles. The gravamen of Plaintiffs’ complaints is that Defendant failed to warn prospective Jeep purchasers of a defect, and has failed to cure the defect as required by its warranties. Defendant now moves to dismiss. (ECF No. 26; ECF No. 34). For the reasons articulated below, Defendant's Motions [26, 34] will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part . Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of express warranty under Tennessee and Georgia law, breach of implied warranty under North Carolina law, and violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, will be DISMISSED without prejudice . Plaintiffs’ MMWA claims will also be DISMISSED as to any state for which a named Plaintiff does not assert a valid warranty claim.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The defect of which Plaintiffs complain is commonly referred to as the "Death Wobble."1 When a vehicle affected by the Death Wobble encounters a bump at highway speeds, its front-end steering components, including its steering wheel, begin to violently shake from side to side. (Reynolds Am. Compl. ("RAC") ¶ 2). Drivers who experience the Death Wobble report feeling as though their vehicles are out of control and coming apart at the seams. (Id. ¶¶ 155, 171). The only way to reliably stop the shaking is to bring the vehicle to a complete stop. (Id. ¶ 171). Plaintiffs allege that "[t]he ‘Death Wobble’ makes [affected vehicles] unsafe to operate by impairing the operator's ability to steer and control ... while presenting a safety risk to the occupants and others on the road." (Id. ¶ 3).

According to Plaintiffs, the Death Wobble is caused by "a defectively designed and/or manufactured solid front axle suspension and damping system." (Id. ¶ 2). Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant's four-link front suspension design "increases the number of wear items (including bushings) within the suspension system," requiring Jeep vehicles to have "high quality suspension components," but that the affected "[v]ehicles contain inadequate rubber bushings that experience tearing, premature wear[,] and failure." (Id. ¶ 148-49).

Defendant has acknowledged the existence of "such a random issue" in model-year 2018 and 2019 Jeep Wranglers, however, it maintains that any problem is remedied by proper installation of an updated front suspension steering damper. (ECF No. 26, PageID. 2601). To that end, in August 2019, Defendant initiated Customer Satisfaction Notification V41 ("CSN V41"), a campaign that offered model-year 2018 and 2019 Jeep Wrangler owners a free updated damper as well as reimbursement for prior related repairs. (ECF No. 22-3, PageID. 1601). Plaintiffs contend, however, that "[a] steering damper ... only serves to temporarily mask the [issue]," and that CSN V41 fails to prevent the Death Wobble from reoccurring. (RAC ¶ 149). Plaintiffs also argue that CSN V41 is but one episode in a saga of failed efforts to address the Death Wobble going back over a decade. (Id. ¶ 4). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant "consistently provides customers inadequate warranty repairs designed to temporarily and repeatedly mask the ‘Death Wobble’ until the warranty coverage expires." (Id. ).

Defendant provides two warranties that are relevant here: a three-year/36,000-mile Basic Limited Warranty, and a five-year/60,000-mile Powertrain Limited Warranty. (Id. ¶ 201). "The Basic Limited Warranty covers the cost of all parts and labor needed to repair any item on [the] vehicle ... that is defective in material, workmanship[,] or factory preparation [as of the time it left the manufacturing plant]," while "[t]he Powertrain Limited Warranty covers the cost of all parts and labor needed to repair a powertrain component ... that is defective in workmanship and materials." (ECF No. 26-4, PageID. 2691, 2695). Plaintiffs contend that they presented their vehicles to an authorized dealership for repair pursuant to the above warranties, but that Defendant was unable to prevent the Death Wobble from reoccurring.

Plaintiff Clair Reynolds purchased a 2018 Jeep Wrangler from Johnson Dodge Chrysler Jeep Ram in New Jersey on July 14, 2018. (RAC ¶ 16). It began to exhibit the Death Wobble within five months. (Id. ¶ 17). On December 27, 2018, Reynolds brought her vehicle to the dealership, which replaced the steering damper. (Id. ¶¶ 18-19). Unfortunately, the Death Wobble returned within a few days. (Id. ¶ 19). On February 22, 2019, Reynolds brought her vehicle back to the dealership, which again replaced the steering damper. (Id. ¶ 20). When the Death Wobble returned a few days later, Reynolds wrote to Defendant pursuant to New Jersey's Lemon Law to give notice of the ongoing problems and offer a final opportunity to repair the vehicle. (Id. ¶¶ 20-21). At the instruction of Defendant's counsel, Reynolds returned to the dealership on April 8, 2019, where her steering damper was replaced a third time, however, the effort was unsuccessful. (Id. ¶¶ 25, 27, 31). After receiving the CSN V41 notice from Defendant, Reynolds attempted to schedule a fourth repair, but was told by the dealership that the CSN V41 service had already been completed when her vehicle was serviced in April. (Id. ¶ 30). Because her vehicle continues to be affected by the Death Wobble, Reynolds no longer drives off-road, avoids highway speeds, and ensures roadway irregularities are avoided or struck at low speeds. (Id. ¶¶ 31-32).

Plaintiff Monica Martirano leased a 2018 Jeep Wrangler from Manahawkin Chrysler in New Jersey on March 30, 2019. (Id. ¶ 40). By May, she had begun to experience the Death Wobble and brought her vehicle to the dealership. (Id. ¶ 41). The dealership replaced her vehicle's front track bar and assembly, but the Death Wobble returned less than a week later. (Id. ). Martirano thereafter brought her vehicle to Global Automall, which replaced the steering damper. (Id. ¶ 42). This repair was also ineffective, as were her efforts to contact Defendant. (Id. ¶ 43). On June 4, 2019, Martirano returned to Global, but the service technician was unable to replicate the Death Wobble and performed no additional repairs. (Id. ¶ 44). Although Global eventually performed the CSN V41 repair on November 14, 2019, Martirano's vehicle continued to exhibit the Death Wobble. (Id. ¶ 46).

Plaintiff Brady Laing purchased a 2018 Jeep Wrangler from Coon Rapids Jeep in Minnesota on October 15, 2018. (Id. ¶ 55). After experiencing the Death Wobble in October 2019 and receiving the CSN V41 notice shortly thereafter, Laing brought his vehicle to Ryan Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram in early December 2019 for the service. (Id. ¶¶ 55-57). The CSN V41 repair failed to fully remedy the Death Wobble. (Id. ¶ 58).

Plaintiff Thomas Pineda leased a 2018 Jeep Wrangler from Franklin Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram in Tennessee on April 14, 2018. (Id. ¶ 65). He began experiencing the Death Wobble within four months and altered his driving practices in an attempt to avoid it. (Id. ¶¶ 66-68). Between October 2018 and April 2019, Pineda brought his vehicle to the dealership on three occasions, but each time he was told that there was nothing wrong with his vehicle. (Id. ¶¶ 70-73). Eventually, he brought his vehicle to Bob Frensley Chrysler Jeep Dodge on April 25, 2019, where he received a replacement steering damper. (Id. ¶¶ 74-75). Neither this repair, nor a subsequent repair on June 25, 2019, have prevented the Death Wobble from reoccurring. (Id. ¶¶ 76-77). Pineda brought his vehicle in for the CSN V41 service in November 2019, but like the prior five repairs, the service did not remedy the issue. (Id. ¶ 80).

Plaintiff William Powers purchased a 2018 Jeep Wrangler from AutoNation Chrysler Jeep Broadway in Colorado in February 2018. (Id. ¶ 87). He began to experience the Death Wobble in December 2018 and brought his vehicle to the dealership on multiple occasions in February 2019. (Id. ¶¶ 88-89). After receiving a replacement steering damper in March 2019, Powers returned to the dealership to report that the Death Wobble had reoccurred. (Id. ¶ 91). Powers was eventually told by AutoNation's general manager that parts were not available to fix the issue, at which point he submitted a complaint to Defendant requesting a buyback. (Id. ¶¶ 91-95). When this effort proved unsuccessful, Powers left his vehicle at the dealership and sought relief through non-binding arbitration. (Id. ¶ 96). On July 18, 2019, Powers's request that Defendant repurchase his vehicle was denied. (Id. ¶ 97). His vehicle eventually received the CSN V41 repair on December 18, 2019, as well as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Sasso v. Tesla, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
    • February 7, 2022
    ...considered merchantable." Carlson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 883 F.2d 287, 297 (4th Cir. 1989) (cleaned up); see Reynolds v. FCA US LLC, 546 F.Supp.3d 635, 649–50 (E.D. Mich. 2021) (collecting cases); Benipayo v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., No. 15-md-02672-CRB, 2020 WL 553884, at *4 (N.D. Cal.......
  • Riley v. Gen. Motors, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00924
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • March 15, 2022
    ...issue, the Court "will defer ruling on the issue until the class certification stage." Id. ; see also Reynolds v. FCA US LLC , 546 F.Supp.3d 635, 647 (E.D. Mich. 2021) ("Here, because Plaintiffs have standing with respect to their own vehicles ... the Court will defer consideration of the s......
  • Harrison v. Gen. Motors
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • January 19, 2023
    ...its essential purpose where plaintiffs pled that Ford was either unwilling or unable to fix the defect); Reynolds v. FCA U.S. LLC, 546 F.Supp.3d 635, 649-50 (E.D. Mich. 2021). Plaintiffs here have adequately pled that even if GM provided them with repairs, the repairs failed to fix the defe......
  • In re Chevrolet Bolt EV Battery Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • September 30, 2022
    ...to use their vehicle but is forced to limit their use to prevent or mitigate the effects of a defect.” Reynolds v. FCA U.S. LLC, 546 F.Supp.3d 635, 651 (E.D. Mich. 2021) (“Although it is true that courts often dismiss implied warranty claims where a plaintiff continues to drive their vehicl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT