Velez v. RM Acquisition, LLC

• Docket Number: 21-cv-02779
• Decision Date: 21 April 2023
• Citation: Velez v. RM Acquisition, LLC, 670 F.Supp.3d 620 (N.D. Ill. 2023)
• Parties: Micahel VELEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RM ACQUISITION, LLC d/b/a Rand McNally, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

670 F.Supp.3d 620

Micahel VELEZ, individually andon behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RM ACQUISITION, LLC d/b/a Rand McNally, Defendant.

No. 21-cv-02779

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

Signed April 21, 2023

Robert John Palmersheim, Timothy Gerrit Parilla, Chicago, IL, Edward A. Wallace, Mark Richard Miller, Wallace Miller, Chicago, IL, Anand C. Mathew, Palmersheim & Mathew, Chicago, IL, Wallace Allen McDonald, Lacy, Price & Wagner, Knoxville, TN, for Plaintiff.

Christine Elizabeth Skoczylas, Kelly Kathryn Koss, Mark Paul Miller, Allison Lee Lantero, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Franklin U. Valderrama, United States District Judge

Commercial truck drivers need a GPS system that accurately directs them to relevant points-of-interest along their journey, not to mention the correct route, so they can make their deliveries.PlaintiffMichael Velez(Velez), a commercial truck driver, purchased Defendant Rand McNally's (Rand)TND 730andTND 740 GPS devices (TND Devices).Velez, however, experienced persistent problems with the TND Devices, ranging from inaccurate maps, misinformation about points-of-interest and poor or unsafe routes.After Rand's attempted repairs of the TND devices were unsuccessful, Velez filed this individual and putative class action against Rand, asserting violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (the MMWA), 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., related warranty claims, claims for violations of consumer protection statutes, and Illinois common law claims.R. 1, Compl.¹

Rand moves to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).R. 21, Mot. Dismiss.Rand also moves to strike the class allegations of the Complaint.R. 23, Mot. Strike.For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Motion to Dismiss and strikes the Motion to Strike as moot.

Background

Rand manufactures, markets, and sells the TND 730andTND 740 GPS devices.Compl.¶¶ 12-14.²The TND devices came with a one-year warranty, which provided that they"will be free of defects in workmanship and materials for a period of one (1) year from the date of first consumer purchase."Id.¶ 28.Via labels and packaging, Rand advertised and represented that the TND 730 came with "Lifetime Maps" that "provides the original purchaser of the device with an annual base map update subject to the terms and conditions described at randmcnally.com/lifetimemaps."Id.¶ 33.While the terms and conditions state that "Lifetime" may be limited to 36 months after the initial release, the packaging states that "Lifetime Maps and Traffic Everywhere" updates are provided to purchasers "as long as you own the TND™."Id.(emphasis removed).

Velez, a Tennessee resident and commercial truck driver, purchased the TND 730 in 2014 at a truck stop for approximately $399.99.Compl.¶¶ 14, 29.In 2017, Velez purchased a new TND 740 at a different truck stop in Illinois for approximately $499.00.Id.¶ 29.Velez experienced persistent problems with both devices, including, but not limited to, displaying his location on parallel or non-existent roads and re-routing him to wrong locations, and taking him in the opposite direction of where he was headed.Id.¶ 30.In addition to causing substantial delays, Velez has been left without a reasonable way to navigate to his destination in his truck.Id.

Velez shipped both TND Devices to Rand for repairs.Compl.¶ 32.The repairs, however, did not provide Velez with better directions, maps, routing, or point-of-intertest information, or updated maps, and neither unit worked any better than they had originally.Id.¶ 32.Velez repeatedly contacted Rand to complain about the problems he was experiencing with the TND Devices.Id.¶ 34.Rand, in response to an April 3, 2021 email inquiry from Velez, informed him that "there will be no future updates provide for the TND 730 devices."Id.¶ 35.On November 16, 2020, and again in January 2021, Velez contacted Rand and complained about the lack of updates for the TND 740. Id.¶¶ 37, 39.Rand informed Velez that the updates would be forthcoming.Id.¶ 39.The updates were never provided.Id.¶ 40.

Velez filed this class-action suit against Rand.Velez proposes a class consisting of "[a]ll current and former purchasers of the Rand McNally TND and/or TND 740 in the United States"(the Class).Compl.¶ 65.Velez asserts the following causes of action on behalf of himself and the Class: (1) violations of the MMWA(Count I);(2) breach of the express warranty, 810 ILCS 5/2-313(Count II);(3) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, 810 ILCS 5/2-314(Count III);(4) violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act (ICFA), 815 ILCS 505/2;(5) violations of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), 815 ILCS § 510, et seq.(Count V);(6) unjust enrichment (Count VI).Compl.Before the Court is Rand's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint under Rules 12(b)(1)and12(b)(6).Mot. Dismiss.

Legal Standard

A Rule 12(b)(1) motion tests whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction.Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chi. Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 820(7th Cir.2009).Standing is an "essential component of Article Ill's case-or-controversy requirement," and the plaintiff"bears the burden of establishing standing . . . in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof . . . ."Apex Digit., Inc. v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 572 F.3d 440, 443(7th Cir.2009).In order to survive a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.Ctr. for Dermatology & Skin Cancer, Ltd. v. Burwell, 770 F.3d 586, 588-89(7th Cir.2014).When deciding a facial challenge to subject matter jurisdiction—that is, when the defendant argues that the plaintiff's allegations as to jurisdiction are inadequate—"the court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff."Silha v. ACT, Inc., 807 F.3d 169, 173(7th Cir.2015)(citingApex Digit., 572 F.3d at 443-44).

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint.Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chi. Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 820(7th Cir.2009).Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must include only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need only contain factual allegations, accepted as true, sufficient 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)(citingBell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929(2007))."A claim has facial plausibility 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.The allegations "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level."Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955.The allegations that are entitled to the assumption of truth are those that are factual, rather than mere legal conclusions.Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

Analysis

I. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Count I)

A.Subject Matter Jurisdiction

In Count I, Velez alleges that Rand violated the MMWA by breaching its written warranties by supplying the TND Devices in conditions that do not meet its warranty obligations.Compl.¶ 93.Velez and the Class seek injunctive relief and damages.Id.Rand argues that Count I must be dismissed because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Count I, as the Complaint does not satisfy the numerosity requirement for federal subject matter over a MMWA class action.R. 22, Memo.Dismissat 4.Predictably, Velez insists that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Count I.R. 39, Resp. at 4.

Before a court can address the merits of a dispute, it must first determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction.SeeScott Air Force Base Properties, LLC v. Cnty. of St. Clair, Ill., 548 F.3d 516, 520(7th Cir.2008).Subject matter jurisdiction is the "first issue in any case."Miller v. Southwest Airlines Co., 926 F.3d 898, 902(7th Cir.2019)."The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter springs from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States and is inflexible and without exception."Cook v. Winfrey, 141 F.3d 322, 325(7th Cir.1998)(cleaned up).³

The MMWA provides that "a consumer who is damaged by the failure of a supplier, warrantor, or service contractor to comply with any obligation under this chapter, or under a written warranty, implied warranty, or service contract, may bring suit for damages and other legal and equitable relief . . . ."15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1).The MMWA"is a consumer protection statute that requires transparency in warranties on consumer products and establishes minimum criteria for different types of warranties and warranty-like products."Ware v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 6 F.4th 726, 728(7th Cir.2021).The MMWA"requires that if a warrantied consumer good cannot be repaired, the written warranty must give consumer a choice of remedy: either replacement or a refund of the purchase price, less reasonable depreciation based on actual use."Id. at 728-29(emphases in original).The MMWA provides a private right of action by purchasers of consumer products against manufacturers or retailers who fail to comply with the terms of a written or implied warranty.15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1).Under the MMWA, a consumer who is damaged by a warrantor's failure to comply with the obligations under a written or implied warranty may sue for damages in two alternative venues: (1)"any court of...