Gunn v. FCA US, LLC

Background

The plaintiffs brought California state-law consumer claims concerning destination charges listed on vehicle-price stickers. They alleged that the stickers did not tell consumers that the charges included a profit component in addition to actual delivery costs.

The court had dismissed the original complaint in its entirety but allowed the plaintiffs to amend. The court previously relied in part on the plaintiffs’ acknowledgment that the stickers plainly stated the destination charges in full and that their claims were not based on a misrepresentation, nondisclosure, or other deceptive act. The court concluded that those concessions foreclosed the claims and that the plaintiffs’ public-policy arguments did not save them.

Amended Complaint and Analysis

The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint that was more than twice as long as the original. It added commentary about vehicle-pricing practices and alleged findings by behavioral economists, as well as materials concerning congressional hearings and statements about the vehicle-price stickers.

The court found that these additions did not materially change the plaintiffs’ theory. The amended complaint still alleged that FCA deceived the car-buying public by failing to state that destination charges included profit. The court concluded that the amended complaint did not plausibly allege a claim for the reasons stated in its earlier dismissal order, which the court incorporated into this order.

Disposition

The court dismissed the first amended complaint with prejudice. It stated that the plaintiffs had received a full and fair opportunity to state a plausible claim and had previously been warned that further amendment likely would not be allowed. The court ordered the case closed.

Judge Donato entered the order on April 29, 2025.