T.J. Mcdermott Transp. Co. v. Cummins, Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 14-4209 (WHW) (CLW) |
| Parties | T.J. McDERMOTT TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., DeMASE WAREHOUSE SYSTEMS, INC., HEAVY WEIGHT ENTERPRISES, INC., P&P ENTERPRISES CO., LLC, YOUNG'S AUTO TRANSPORT, INC., ALLEN HARDWICK, and JOSE VEGA, Plaintiffs, v. CUMMINS, INC., CUMMINS EMISSION SYSTEMS, INC., and PACCAR, INC. d/b/a PETERBILT MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Plaintiff T.J. McDermott Transportation Co. filed this action on July 2, 2014, invoking this Court's diversity jurisdiction and alleging that tractors it purchased from Defendants had defective engines. T.J. McDermott filed an amended complaint on September 2, 2014. ECF No. 17. Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint, and this Court partially granted and partially denied that motion on March 11, 2014. ECF Nos. 37, 38. On December 29, 2015, Magistrate Judge Waldor granted Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 69, and Plaintiff did so on January 8, 2016. The Second Amended Complaint added Plaintiffs DeMase Warehouse Systems, Heavy Weight Enterprises, Inc., P&P Enterprises, Co., Young's Auto Transport, Inc., Allen Hardwick, and Jose Vega. Id. They seek to certify classes on behalf of purchasers in New Jersey, California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, and Connecticut. Defendant PACCAR now moves to partially dismiss that complaint. Decided without oral argument under Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 78, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The following facts are drawn from the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), ECF No. 69, unless otherwise noted. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants PACCAR and Cummins formed a partnership in 2001 for the "development, design, manufacture, assembly, marketing and sale of tractors that used Cummins's ISX15 engine. Id. ¶ 14. According to Plaintiffs, PACCAR's vehicles equipped with the ISX15 engine from model years 2007 through 2009 experienced failures due to various problems relating to "exhaust gas recirculation ('EGR'), the EGR valves, diesel particulate filter ('DPF') systems and other sensors, and other piping and containment components for the Aftertreatment System." Id. ¶ 24. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants were aware of these failures in part because the vehicles' onboard diagnostics systems "store trouble or fault codes and provide data to Defendants' and/or their authorized service providers' diagnostic computers." Id. ¶ 19.
Despite these problems with earlier ISX15 models, Cummins "designed, manufactured, marketed, assembled and sold" a 2010 ISX15 model (the "subject engines"). Id. ¶ 16. Plaintiffs allege that Cummins designed these engines without "correcting the known problems with the 2007 through 2009 model year . . . engines." Id. ¶ 25. PACCAR then designed and marketed tractors equipped with the 2010 ISX15 engine (the "subject vehicles"). Id. ¶ 18. Plaintiffs assert that Cummins "warranted to Plaintiffs that the 2010 ISX15 engines would be free from defects in material and workmanship and that in the event a defect manifested, Cummins was obligated to correct the defect." Id. ¶ 26.
According to the complaint, Defendants "intentionally concealed" defects with the subject vehicles, including persistent problems with (1) the engines' gas recirculation system, (2) the aftertreatment system's diesel particulate filters, (3) the aftertreatment system's hydrocarbondoser, (4) several of the engines' sensors, and (5) other components in the aftertreatment system's piping and containment system. Id. ¶ 27. Owners of the subject vehicles experienced various problems "often before the 200,000 mile interval, at a high rate." Id. ¶ 28. Their tractors "repeatedly and frequently broke down, failed to function properly, and failed to function reliably and dependently." Id. ¶ 32. Cummins issued seventeen technical service bulletins listing problems with the subject engines from 2011 through 2014. Id. ¶ 29. Plaintiffs allege that these defects were known to Defendants at the time of sale and that Defendants failed to disclose them. Id. ¶¶ 30-34.
Plaintiffs are companies and individuals that purchased the subject vehicles. Plaintiff T.J. McDermott, a New Jersey corporation, purchased five subject vehicles between 2010 and 2011. Id. ¶¶ 1, 36. Plaintiff DeMase, also a New Jersey corporation, purchased four subject vehicles in 2011. Id. ¶¶ 2, 37. Plaintiff Heavy Weight Enterprises, a Michigan corporation, bought one subject vehicle in 2010. Id. ¶¶ 3, 38. Plaintiff P&P, a Connecticut corporation, also bought one subject vehicle in 2010. Id. ¶¶ 4, 39. Plaintiff Young's Transport, a Florida corporation, bought two subject vehicles in 2012. Id. ¶¶ 5, 40. Plaintiff Hardwick, a Georgia resident, purchased a subject vehicle in 2010. Id. ¶¶ 6, 41. Plaintiff Vega, a California resident, purchased a subject vehicle in 2013. Id. ¶¶ 7, 42. These Plaintiffs experienced problems with the subject engines that they claim resulted in "out-of-pocket costs of repair, towing and lodging costs, rental costs of replacement vehicles, diminished value of Subject Vehicles, lost revenue, lost profit, and goodwill" as well as "substantially diminished resale value and intrinsic value." Id. ¶¶ 47, 48.
Plaintiffs also seek to certify several classes and sub-classes. They propose a New Jersey class consisting of all persons and entities in New Jersey who are "users, purchasers, subsequent purchasers, owners, subsequent owners, and lessors" of a vehicle powered by a 2010 ISX15engine, with a New Jersey subclass specifically relating to those whose vehicle was made by PACCAR. Id. ¶ 50. They also seek to certify identical classes and subclasses for persons and entities in the states of California and Florida. Id. Finally, Plaintiffs propose classes of 2010 ISX15 engine owners, without related subclasses for the states of Georgia, Michigan, and Connecticut. Id.
On behalf of themselves and the putative classes, Plaintiffs assert (1) one count under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1, against Cummins on behalf of the New Jersey Class and against PACCAR on behalf of the New Jersey sub-class, id. ¶¶ 62-71, (2) one count of breach of express warranty under New Jersey law against Cummins on behalf of the New Jersey Class, id. ¶¶ 72-86, (3) one count of breach of express warranty under California law against Cummins on behalf of the California Class, id. ¶¶ 87-100, (4) one count for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Business and Professions Code § 17200, against Cummins on behalf of the California Class and against Cummins and PACCAR on behalf of the California sub-class, id. ¶¶ 101-109, (5) one count of breach of express warranty under Florida law against Cummins on behalf of the Florida Class, id. ¶¶ 110-124, (6) one count for violation of Florida's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, § 501.201, Florida Statutes, against Cummins on behalf of the Florida Class and against PACCAR on behalf of the Florida sub-class, id. ¶¶ 125-132, (7) one count for breach of express warranty under Georgia law against Cummins on behalf of the Georgia class, id. ¶¶ 133-147, (8) one count for breach of express warranty under Michigan law against Cummins on behalf of the Michigan class, id. ¶ 148-162, (9) and finally one count of breach of express warranty under Connecticut law against Cummins on behalf of the Connecticut Class, id. ¶¶ 163-177. On March 9, 2016, the parties stipulated to a dismissal without prejudice of the claims against Cummins, subject to Cummins's agreement toparticipate in discovery and toll the statute of limitations for claims asserted against it in the Second Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 91.
PACCAR moves to dismiss (1) DeMase's claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, (2) Vega's claim under the California Unfair Competition Law, (3) Young's Transport's claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and (4) all claims for consequential and incidental damages under these laws. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 77 at 8-13.
"To survive a motion to dismiss, 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 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible on its face "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. Id. (internal quotations and alterations omitted). "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not 'shown'—that the pleader is entitled to relief." Id. at 679.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) provides that, "[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). The purpose of the heightened pleading standard is to require the plaintiff to "state the circumstances of the alleged fraud with sufficient particularity to place the defendant on notice of the precise misconduct with which it is charged." Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 200 (3d Cir. 2007). "To satisfy this heightened standard, the plaintiff must plead or allege the date,time and place of the alleged fraud or otherwise inject precision or some measure of substantiation into a fraud allegation." Frederico, 507 F.3d at 200. Normally, "Rule 9(b) requires, at a minimum, that plaintiffs support their allegations . . . with all of the essential factual background that would accompany the first...
To continue reading
Request your trial