Jenkins v. FCA US LLC

Background

Brian Jenkins and Matthew Brookshier alleged that Dodge Durangos manufactured between 2014 and 2023 have a rear-taillight defect that allows water to enter through gaskets and seals on the tailgate. They alleged that the defect can affect the taillights, reverse lights, and reverse-camera system, and can increase the risk of collisions, electrical shorts, and fires. They also alleged that FCA knew about the defect since at least 2020 but did not instruct dealers to notify vehicle owners, issue recalls, or offer repairs when the defect appeared outside the warranty period.

Jenkins purchased a used 2019 Durango in March 2020 and discovered water in its taillight in January 2023. Brookshier purchased a used 2021 Durango in 2024 and discovered water in its taillight in March 2024. The second amended complaint asserted warranty, fraud-based, and California consumer-protection claims. FCA moved to dismiss all of the claims. The opinion also describes an earlier round of this case in which the court dismissed Jenkins’s warranty claims without leave to amend, dismissed some fraud-related claims for insufficient allegations, and allowed amendment of certain fraud-based and consumer-protection claims.

Express-Warranty Claim

FCA argued that Brookshier failed to allege that he sought repairs before the factory warranty’s time or mileage limits expired. Brookshier alleged that his vehicle had a three-year, 36,000-mile limited warranty, that he contacted a Dodge dealer in March 2024, and that the vehicle had 28,000 miles. The court concluded that these allegations reasonably supported an inference that he sought repairs before the warranty expired. The court denied FCA’s motion to dismiss Brookshier’s express-warranty claim.

Fraud-Based Claims

The plaintiffs relied on an omissions theory for their fraud-based claims. Because of that theory, the court considered whether FCA had a duty to disclose the defect even though the plaintiffs did not buy their vehicles directly from FCA. The court followed authorities holding that a manufacturer may have a duty to disclose a defect posing an unreasonable safety risk even without a direct transactional relationship with the vehicle owner.

The court found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged an unreasonable safety risk through allegations about increased collision risk and the possibility of an electrical short or fire. It also found that the plaintiffs supplied enough detail under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires fraud allegations to identify the circumstances of the alleged misconduct with particularity, including who, what, when, where, and how. The court therefore denied in part and reserved ruling in part on the fraud-based claims.

The court did not finally resolve the negligent-misrepresentation issue. The plaintiffs represented that their fraud-based claims relied on omissions rather than affirmative misrepresentations. The court ordered additional briefing on whether California law permits the negligent-misrepresentation claim to proceed on that omissions theory.

Equitable Relief

The plaintiffs sought relief under California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law and also asserted unjust enrichment. The court concluded that they alleged enough facts to seek prospective injunctive relief. But the plaintiffs did not explain how restitution under the Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law would differ from damages sought under their other legal claims. The court granted in part FCA’s motion to dismiss those claims to the extent they sought restitution.

For the same reasons, the court granted FCA’s motion to dismiss the unjust-enrichment claim. The court did not grant leave to amend at that time, while stating that it would not preclude a later motion for leave to amend if circumstances changed during the litigation.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part FCA’s motion to dismiss. It ordered the plaintiffs to file a supplemental brief on negligent misrepresentation, allowed FCA to respond, and set a case-management conference for February 28, 2025. Judge Jeffrey White signed the order.