Ward-Richardson v. FCA US LLC

690 F.Supp.3d 1372

Jibri WARD-RICHARDSON and Yesenia Robaina,individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:21-CV-235-RWS

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Gainesville Division

Signed September 6, 2023

Aaron Marcus Kappler, Thompson, O'Brien, Kappler & Nasuti, P.C., Richmond Hill, GA, Jeffrey Andrew Reynolds, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs.

Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Pro Hac Vice, Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Thompson Coburn, LLP, St. Louis, MO, Thomas M. Mitchell, Carothers & Mitchell, LLC, Buford, GA, for Defendant.

ORDER

RICHARD W. STORY, United States District Judge

This case comes before the Court on Defendant FCA US LLC's ("FCA") Motion to Dismiss Based on Mootness [Dkt. 33], which is fully briefed. After reviewing the parties' briefs, the Court enters the following Order.

BACKGROUND¹

This case stems from alleged defects in the "electrical and/or computer system" installed in the 2021 Jeep Wrangler 4xe model, which FCA manufacturers and sells through licensed dealerships across the United States (the "Class Vehicles"). [Dkt. 17, at ¶ 3]. Plaintiffs Jibri Ward-Richardson and Yesenia Robaina (collectively, "Plaintiffs") initiated this suit on November 3, 2021 [Dkt. 1], seeking both equitable and legal relief on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals. [Dkt. 17, at ¶ 3]. Specifically, Plaintiffs pray for (i) an order declaring the Class Vehicles' electrical/computer system defective; (ii) an order requiring FCA to recall the Class Vehicles and replace the defect free of charge; (iii) an order declaring FCA's conduct unlawful and permanently enjoining FCA from engaging in such conduct; (iv) an order requiring FCA to either disgorge all ill-gotten gains received from the sale or lease of Class Vehicles, or requiring FCA to make full restitution to all owners/lessors of Class Vehicles; and (v) an award of actual, compensatory, and punitive damages for the diminution in value the Class Vehicles sustained as a result of the defect. [Id. at Prayer for Relief].

FCA has already filed two motions to dismiss in this matter. [Dkts. 8, 20]. Most recently, the Court granted FCA's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (the "FAC") in part and dismissed eight of the ten claims asserted therein. [See Dkt. 26, at 39]. In doing so, the Court allowed only Counts I (fraudulent concealment) and VIII (violation of state consumer protection acts) to proceed to the extent those claims seek relief under Georgia and Virginia law. [Id.; see also id. at 14 & n.3 (dismissing claims for attorney's fees, punitive damages, and injunctive relief, but permitting Plaintiffs to seek the same as remedies for the surviving claims)].

Shortly thereafter, FCA initiated a voluntary recall of 62,909 model-year 2021-2023 Jeep Wrangler vehicles, including the Class Vehicles ("Recall ZB7"). [See Dkt. 33-1, at 2 (citing Part 573 Safety Recall Report 22V-865 (Nov. 23, 2022) [hereinafter Ex. A], https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCLRPT-22V865-9895.PDF)].² Recall ZB7 is being carried out under the supervision of the NHTSA. [See id. at 3 (citing Letter from Alex Ansley, Chief of Recall Mgmt. Div., Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp. (Dec. 2, 2022) [hereinafter Ex. B], https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCAK-22V865-1952.pdf)].

On December 22, 2022, FCA sent letters to all owners/lessors of affected vehicles, including Plaintiffs, announcing Recall ZB7. [See id. at 4 (citing ZB7/NHTSA 22V-865, Important Safety Recall: Loss of Motive Power (Dec. 22, 2022) [hereinafter Ex. C], https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCONL-22V865-8324.pdf)]. Those letters acknowledge the existence of a dangerous defect that may cause affected vehicles to experience an "engine shutdown condition." [Id. at 4 (quoting Ex. C)]. The letters also provide that FCA will repair the defect for free and reimburse all owners/lessors of affected vehicles who already paid to repair the defective condition on their own. [Id. at 4-5]. Specifically, the relevant portions of the letters state as follows:

HOW DO I RESOLVE THIS IMPORTANT SAFETY ISSUE?

FCA US will repair your vehicle free of charge (parts and labor). To do this, your dealer will update vehicle control software on all affected vehicles . . . .

. . . .

WHAT IF I ALREADY PAID TO HAVE THIS REPAIR COMPLETED?

If you have already experienced this specific condition and have paid to have it repaired, you may visit www.fcarecallreimbursement.com to submit your reimbursement request online. Once we receive and verify the required documents, reimbursement will be sent to you within 60 days . . . .

[Ex. C (footnotes omitted)].

FCA now seeks dismissal a third time, arguing that Recall ZB7 renders Plaintiffs' claims moot and deprives this Court of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). [Dkt. 33]. For the following reasons, the Court agrees.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

Rule 12(b)(1) permits parties to move for dismissal based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Such motions can be made facially or factually. Morrison v. Amway Corp., 323 F.3d 920, 924 n.5 (11th Cir. 2003). "Facial attacks" focus on the pleadings and require courts to determine whether the allegations (which the court must accept as true) establish an adequate basis for jurisdiction. Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990) (per curium). "Factual attacks," on the other hand, challenge jurisdiction based on surrounding circumstances and allow courts to consider materials outside the pleadings when determining whether jurisdiction exists. Id. Here, FCA presents a factual attack based on mootness, a corollary to Article III's justiciability requirement. See Nat'l Ass'n of Bds. of Pharm. v. Bd. of Regents, 633 F.3d 1297, 1308 (11th Cir. 2011).

Article III limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to the consideration of only actual, ongoing cases or controversies. Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 110 S. Ct. 1249, 1253, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990); Mingkid v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 468 F.3d 763, 768 (11th Cir. 2006). The "case or controversy" requirement subsists throughout the entirety of litigation and provides that a court may retain jurisdiction over a lawsuit only when the parties have a "personal stake in the outcome." See Lewis, 110 S. Ct. at 1253-54. Article III thus prohibits federal courts from retaining jurisdiction over a case when the court's decisions "cannot affect the rights of the litigants"—i.e., when the case becomes moot. Id.; Ga. Ass'n of Latino Elected Offs., Inc. v. Gwinnett Cnty. Bd. of Registration & Elections, 36 F.4th 1100, 1117 (11th Cir. 2022).

The central question raised by the mootness doctrine is whether changes in the circumstances that existed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. v. Consol. Utils. & Commc'ns, Inc., 846 F.2d 803, 810 (1st Cir. 1988). When that question is answered in the affirmative, courts must dismiss those claims (or the case entirely) for lack of jurisdiction. Troiano v. Supervisor of Elections in Palm Beach Cnty., Fla., 382 F.3d 1276, 1282 (11th Cir. 2004); Westmoreland v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 833 F.2d 1461, 1462 (11th Cir. 1987).

II. Analysis

Plaintiffs initiated this suit seeking both equitable (e.g., injunctive and declaratory) and legal relief to correct alleged defects in the Class Vehicles. At the time Plaintiffs initiated suit, FCA had not yet recalled the Class Vehicles. Now it has, and now FCA contends that Recall ZB7 moots Plaintiffs' claims and deprives this Court of jurisdiction because the recall provides the exact relief Plaintiffs seek. [Dkt. 33]. In support, FCA relies on the prudential mootness doctrine. [Dkt. 33-1, at 6-7].

The prudential mootness doctrine allows courts to withhold requested relief when a once-live controversy becomes "so attenuated that considerations of prudence and comity . . . counsel the court to stay its hand." Ingaseosas Int'l Co. v. Aconcagua Investing, Ltd., 479 Fed. Appx. 955, 962 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting Chamber of Commerce v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 627 F.2d 289, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). The doctrine "often makes its appearance in cases where a plaintiff starts off with a vital complaint but then a coordinate branch of government steps in to promise the relief [the plaintiff] seeks." Winzler, 681 F.3d at 1211 (affirming dismissal, holding a voluntary recall conducted under the supervision of the NHTSA mooted defective vehicle claims). Still, courts may maintain jurisdiction over a case that otherwise appears to be prudentially moot if the plaintiff alleges a cognizable danger that the proffered relief will fail. Id. at 1211-12 ("If the party seeking relief can show that 'there exists some cognizable danger of recurrent violation,' . . . we will continue with the case even in the face of a simultaneous remedial commitment from another branch [of government]." (quotation omitted)).

Plaintiffs do not dispute that Recall ZB7 provides the equitable relief they pray for: through the recall, FCA (i) acknowledges the existence of a defect in the Class Vehicles' electrical/computer system; (ii) recalls the Class Vehicles and promises to repair the defect in those vehicles free of charge; and (iii) invokes NHTSA's oversight authority, subjecting itself to penalties if it fails to comply with federal safety regulations. See id. at 1211 (observing that the NHTSA may impose penalties for noncompliance (citing 49 U.S.C. §§ 30120, 30165)); Cheng v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 2013 WL 3940815, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 26, 2013) ("Through the statutory authority conferred upon it, NHTSA 'has the ability to ensure [FCA]'s full compliance through fines."). Nonetheless, Plaintiffs contend that Recall ZB7 does not moot their claims because (i) the prudential mootness doctrine does not apply to claims for monetary...