Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
October 25, 2022, Decided; October 25, 2022, Filed
Civil Case No. 21-12497
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS
On October 22, 2021, Plaintiffs filed this putative nationwide class action alleging defects in the 6.7-liter turbodiesel engine installed in their heavy-duty trucks. Defendant FCA US LLC ("FCA") manufactured the trucks while Defendant Cummins, Inc. manufactured the engine.1 In an almost 300-page, 776-paragraph Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), filed February 1, 2022, Plaintiffs assert claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA") and for common law breach of contract, as well as claims under the laws of 18 different States for unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and/or violation of consumer-protection statutes. (ECF No. 25.)
The matter is presently before the Court on motions to dismiss filed [*3] by FCA and Cummins. (ECF Nos. 27, 31.) The motions have been fully briefed, with Plaintiffs filing a single response brief to both motions (ECF No. 36) and FCA and Cummins filing reply briefs (ECF Nos. 37, 38). As well, Plaintiffs filed a sur-reply brief (ECF No. 39-1), to which Defendants responded (ECF Nos. 40-1, 41-1). Lastly, Plaintiffs filed supplemental authority (ECF Nos. 42-1, 43), to which Defendants also responded (ECF Nos. 44, 45). The Court is prepared to rule on the motions.
Cummins also filed a request for the Court to take judicial notice of certain documents. (ECF No. 30.) Specifically, these documents are (i) from the official website of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"), part of the United States Department of Transportation, and (ii) FCA's limited warranties, which are referred to in Plaintiffs' pleadings and are central to their claims. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiffs do not oppose Cummins' request (see id. at Pg ID 2061-62), nor could they present a strong argument for doing so.
Courts frequently take judicial notice of federal regulatory agency materials and materials available through federal agency websites pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2). See, e.g., Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Zantop Air Transp. Corp., 394 F.2d 36, 40 (6th Cir. 1968) (collecting [*4] cases); Gregorio v. Ford Motor Co., 522 F. Supp. 3d 264, 279 n.5 (E.D. Mich. 2021) (citing Purry v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 350 F. Supp. 3d 631, 634 (E.D. Mich. 2018)); Winzler v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., 681 F.3d 1208, 1212-13 (10th Cir. 2012) ("The contents of an administrative agency's publicly available files . . . traditionally qualify for judicial notice, even when the truthfulness of the documents on file is another matter."). Further, when deciding a motion to dismiss, a court may consider materials outside the pleadings that "are referred to in the complaint and are central to the claims contained therein." Bassett v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194163 *; __ F.Supp.3d __; 2022 WL 14721245
LARRY SHARP, et al., Individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, f/k/a Chrysler Group, STELLANTIS N.V., and CUMMINS, INC., Defendants.
repair, truck, NHTSA, mootness, Plaintiffs', pump, damages, prudential, promised, warranty, cases, replace, engine, fuel, co ordinate branch, lawsuit, courts, fuel system, diesel engine, reimburse, motion to dismiss, announced, documents, equipped, recalls, notice, benefit-of-the-bargain, manufactured, allegations, cognizable