Norman v. FCA US, LLC

696 F.Supp.3d 359

Effie Johnson NORMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FCA US, LLC, Defendant.

2:22-CV-11393-TGB-CI

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Signed September 30, 2023

Adam J. Levitt, Blake Stubbs, Daniel R. Ferri, John E. Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Chicago, IL, Dennis A. Lienhardt, Sharon S. Almonrode, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Rochester, MI, Dylan Thomas Martin, H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley Allen Law Firm, Montgomery, AL, James Mitchell Williams, W. Daniel Miles, III, Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles PC, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff Effie Johnson Norman.

Adam J. Levitt, Blake Stubbs, Daniel R. Ferri, John E. Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Chicago, IL, Chicago, IL, Dennis A. Lienhardt, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Rochester, MI, for Plaintiffs Trevor Creech, Dez Jones, Edwin McFarland.

Alison Rodney, Bush Seyferth, PLLC, Troy, MI, David M. Dell, Fred J. Fresard, Ian Kennedy Edwards, Klein Thomas Lee & Fresard, Troy, MI, Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Thompson Coburn LLP, Saint Louis, MO, Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Thompson Coburn LLP, Saint Louis, MS, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

(ECF NO. 16)

TERRENCE G. BERG, United States District Judge

In this proposed class action, four named plaintiffs are suing FCA over an unspecified cluster of defects in model year 2016-2022 RAM 1500 vehicles. They allege that the defects cause water to leak into the vehicles through the rear window—resulting in moisture that plays havoc with a number of the vehicle's systems. Their 21-count, 110-page complaint seeks damages under a variety of legal theories under the laws of several different jurisdictions.

FCA moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims on several grounds. ECF No. 16. For the reasons explained below, the motion will be GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. General Allegations

Plaintiffs are individuals who purchased model year 2016-2022 RAM 1500 vehicles. They allege that defects in their vehicles allow water to leak into their rear cabins—causing not only cosmetic damage, foul odors, mold, and mildew, but also rear cabin airbag contamination and interference with electrical systems, which can manifest itself through issues with locks, windows, headlights, tail lights, interior lights, windshield wipers, the push-to-start ignition system, the climate control system, the infotainment system, the navigation system, and the back-up camera. First Am. Compl., ¶¶ 4-5, ECF No. 14.

The exact nature of the defect is unclear from the complaint. Plaintiffs attribute their damages alternately to: (1) FCA's alleged failure to adequately design and manufacture the Class Vehicles' rear cabin windows, rear cabin brake lights, auxiliary antennas, and related seals; or (2) FCA's failure to adequately design and manufacture the body of the Class Vehicles, so that the frames and chassis do not twist or flex and cause cracks in the windows. ¶¶ 50-51. Put another way, the complaint describes a number of symptoms, not a cause or defective component, so it is unclear whether there is one defect or two.

While Plaintiffs do not describe the nature of the defect with specificity, they say that FCA nevertheless has known about it since at least 2016—and should have known about it earlier, through presale testing. ¶ 8. According to the complaint, FCA's knowledge of the defect can be inferred from five sources: (1) an increase in consumer complaints about the defect submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), ¶ 101; (2) complaints on online forums, on which FCA maintains accounts and through which FCA provides customer support, ¶ 123; (3) correlating increases in warranty claims, ¶ 122; (4) presale testing, ¶¶ 96-100; and (5) three service bulletins issued by FCA in 2021, providing guidance on troubleshooting issues with water leaking into the vehicles through the rear cab, ¶¶ 52-59.

In the operative complaint, Plaintiffs cite thirty-eight complaints submitted to NHTSA about Class Vehicles. It is not apparent that all these complaints relate to the alleged defect. Many complaints pre-dating 2019 concern generalized issues and do not mention or clearly relate to water intrusion. See e.g., ¶ 102 (October 2016 complaint about flickering headlights); ¶ 103 (November 2016 complaint about headlights turning off); ¶ 104 (June 2017 complaint about electrical issues); ¶ 105 (January 2018 complaint about flickering headlights); ¶ 106 (May 2018 complaint about electrical issues); ¶ 107 (July 2018 complaint about camera). Only two complaints pre-dating 2019 mention rain or water. ¶¶ 108-109.

Plaintiffs provide no details regarding presale testing or the alleged increase in warranty claims. But they speculate that, "[f]or every one complaint filed with NHTSA, FCA likely receives hundreds or thousands of related warranty claims." ¶ 122.

As for the web forums, Plaintiffs mention a thread on 5thgenrams.com started on May 18, 2019, titled "Water Stained Headliner above Rear Window." ¶ 123. They allege that FCA operates an account on and provides customer support through this and other forums, but they do not include hyperlinks to or printouts of any specific threads. Id. Nor do they describe any specific interactions by FCA personnel with consumers on the forums.

Plaintiffs attach the three service bulletins to their complaint. One, issued on February 15, 2021, concerns complaints that "water is leaking into the cab through the third brake light" and instructs technicians to add a secondary seal at the top of the brake light. ECF No. 14-3. The second, issued on April 15, 2021, identifies an issue with "water leak rear of cab rear seat or headliner," and specifies four possible causes: (1) a cracked rear window/frame; (2) incorrect back window seal; (3) rear brake light; (4) antenna. ECF No. 14-4. The final bulletin, issued on April 22, 2021, identifies issues with "water leaks from the cab back, evident on rear seats, carpet, and potentially roof." ECF No. 14-5. It instructs technicians to "inspect the rear sliding glass assembly from inside the cab, looking for cracks in the frame," and to replace parts if cracks are detected. Id. None of the bulletins authorize out-of-warranty repairs.

Class Vehicles are subject to a Limited Vehicle Warranty, which applies for 36 months or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first:

The Basic Limited Warranty covers the cost of all parts and labor needed to repair any item on your vehicle when it left the manufacturing plant that is defect in material, workmanship or factory preparation. There is no list of covered parts since the only exception are tires and Unwired headphones.

¶¶ 139-140, ECF No. 14.

There are some exclusions and limitations. Windshields, for instance, are covered for only 12 months or 12,000 miles. ¶ 141; ECF No. 14-19.

According to Plaintiffs, rather than disclosing or fixing the defect, FAC actively concealed it, marketed their vehicles as being durable and reliable, attempted to limit applicable warranties, and refused to perform repairs to correct the defect. ¶¶ 127-44, ECF No. 14. They allege that FCA-authorized dealerships acted as agents of FCA in these wrongdoings. ¶ 148. Though they acknowledge that some consumers received some received in-warranty repairs, they say these repairs were inadequate because all FCA did was replace defective vehicle components with equally defective vehicle components. ¶ 144.

B. Plaintiff-Specific Allegations

The four named Plaintiffs each allege unique purchasing circumstances, vehicle issues, and repair efforts.

Plaintiff Effie Norman purchased a used 2019 RAM 1500 with 31,000 miles from Wholesale Auto Plus LLC in Alabama in April 2020. ¶ 20. She still owns the vehicle. ¶ 21. In December 2020, when her car's odometer read 45,000 miles, Norman began noticing intermittent electrical issues with her vehicle. ¶ 22. The failures worsened, and a year later at 53,000 miles, she noticed a foul odor in the vehicle. ¶ 22. In early 2022, Norman noticed her backseat carpet was water-logged and moldy. Id. When she presented her vehicle to Stivers RAM, the dealership conducted a moisture test and diagnosed a rear cabin window crack. Id. Her vehicle was out of warranty, so she repaired the window at her own expense. Id. She alleges that, to this day, she continues to have issues with the electrical systems and the ignition start button. Id.

Plaintiff Trevor Creech purchased a new 2019 Ram 1500 from Moss Bros. Auto Group in California in December 2018. ¶ 28. He still owns the vehicle. ¶ 29. In November 2020, when his vehicle's odometer read under 20,000 miles, Creech noticed two cracks in his rear windshield, along with water leakage and foul odors when it rained. ¶ 30. When he presented his vehicle to Lawley Chrysler Jeep Dodge for repairs, the dealership replaced the vehicle's rear brake lights and a seam that appeared to be causing the cracks. Id. He says that the cracks reappeared six months later but not whether his vehicle was still under warranty at that point or whether he attempted another repair. Id.

Plaintiff Dez Jones purchased a used 2016 Ram 1500 with 30,000 miles from a Carmax in Georgia in June 2018. ¶ 34. He still owns the vehicle. ¶ 35. In July 2018, when the odometer read approximately 30,500 to 31,000 miles, he began noticing leaks and mold around the gasket and seal of the third break light. ¶ 36. An AutoNation in Georgia diagnosed a defect with the brake light and seal and replaced the seal and the light. Id. Jones says that, when the problem returned some months later, AutoNation again diagnosed the same defect but did not perform any repairs. Id. He says he experienced mold, a wet interior, and problems with his power folding side mirrors and power slide window because of the defect. ¶ 36.

Plaintiff Edward McFarland purchased a new 2018 Ram 1500 from Greenville Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram in Texas in May 2018. ¶¶ 40-41. In December, when the odometer...