Zapien v. US
- Beth Freeman
- 5:25-cv-00387
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 9
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Zapien v. FCA US, LLC, Judge Freeman denied three of FCA's four pretrial evidence-exclusion motions and granted one in part, allowing most disputed evidence about vehicle defects to go to the jury.
Consumers who purchase vehicles and bring lemon-law claims under California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and manufacturers defending such claims; the ruling addresses what categories of vehicle repair evidence can be presented to a jury at trial.
What happened
In Zapien v. FCA US, LLC (No. 25-cv-00387-BLF), plaintiff Erica Zapien sued FCA US, LLC over a 2021 RAM 2500 pickup truck she claims had defects FCA's repair representatives could not fix after multiple attempts. Her lawsuit alleges violations of California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, which protects buyers of defective products, covering both express warranties (written promises) and implied warranties (the basic guarantee that a product works for its intended purpose). The case was removed from California state court to federal court and is heading to trial.
FCA filed four pretrial motions asking the court to block certain categories of evidence from reaching the jury: (1) complaints that were fixed after a single repair visit; (2) defects Zapien never formally reported to FCA or its repair shops; (3) defects or repairs that arose outside the warranty period; and (4) recall-related service visits characterized as repair attempts. Zapien opposed all four, arguing that even single-incident complaints, unreported defects, out-of-warranty events, and recall visits can be relevant to proving her claims, particularly her implied-warranty claim which does not require her to have presented the vehicle to a repair shop.
Judge Freeman denied three of the four motions outright and granted the fourth only in part. MIL No. 1 (single-repair complaints) was denied because such evidence can be relevant to whether an underlying defect was ever truly fixed and to the implied-warranty and timeliness-of-repair claims. MIL No. 2 (unreported defects) was granted as to the express warranty claim under § 1793.2(d)(2) — where presentation to a repair shop is a required element — but denied as to the implied warranty claim under § 1791.1, which has no such requirement. MIL No. 3 (out-of-warranty events) was denied because post-warranty defects can shed light on whether in-warranty repairs were effective, and because the contract had multiple overlapping warranties with different durations. MIL No. 4 (recall visits) was denied because recall campaigns may provide circumstantial evidence that the defect triggering a recall was present in Zapien's specific vehicle. Motions 1, 3, and 4 were denied without prejudice, meaning FCA may raise specific objections to particular evidence at trial.
The detailed version
- Zapien v. US · No. 5:25-cv-00387
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 26, 2026
Background
On or about September 20, 2021, plaintiff Erica Zapien entered into a warranty contract with defendant FCA US, LLC regarding a new 2021 RAM 2500. The contract contained several express warranties covering various aspects of the vehicle for varying durations. Zapien alleges that during the warranty period the vehicle manifested nonconformities (defects), that she presented it to FCA's authorized service representatives, and that they were unable to repair the nonconformities after multiple attempts.
Zapien filed suit in California state court on August 30, 2024, alleging violations of California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("Song-Beverly Act"), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.1, 1793.2(b), and 1793.2(d). (A claim under § 1793.2(a)(3) was dropped before this order.) The case was removed to federal court on January 10, 2025. The court held a Final Pretrial Conference on August 20, 2026, issued oral rulings, and then issued this written order.
Legal Standard
The court applied Federal Rules of Evidence 401–403. Under Rule 401, evidence is relevant if it makes a fact of consequence more or less probable. Relevant evidence is generally admissible; irrelevant evidence is not. Under Rule 403, the court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.
MIL No. 1 — Single-Repair Complaints
FCA sought to exclude evidence of complaints that were resolved after only one repair attempt, arguing that Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2) requires proof of a "reasonable number of" repair attempts, making one-time repairs irrelevant. The specific complaints targeted were portions of Repair Orders 115133, 288741, and 286834 relating to a throttle light, a horn honking on its own, and engine noise/power loss.
The court denied MIL No. 1. First, because modern vehicle systems are interconnected, seemingly unrelated one-time complaints (e.g., horn and throttle issues) may stem from the same underlying defect, making them relevant to whether FCA repaired the source of a nonconformity after a reasonable number of attempts. Second, one-time complaints are independently relevant to Zapien's implied warranty of merchantability claim under § 1791.1 — which requires only that the vehicle be fit for ordinary purposes, not that the plaintiff present the vehicle repeatedly for repair. Third, they are relevant to her § 1793.2(b) claim, which requires that repairs be commenced and completed within specified timeframes. The denial was without prejudice, allowing FCA to raise specific objections at trial if particular evidence appears isolated and unrelated to any broader defect.
MIL No. 2 — Unreported Defects
FCA sought to exclude evidence of alleged defects that Zapien never presented to FCA or its authorized repair representatives, arguing that the Song-Beverly Act's presentation requirement means such evidence would mislead the jury.
The court granted MIL No. 2 as to Zapien's claim under § 1793.2(d)(2). Under that provision, a plaintiff must show, among other elements, that the vehicle "was presented to an authorized representative of the manufacturer for repair." Admitting evidence of defects never presented would risk causing the jury to conflate defects FCA was obligated to repair with defects FCA was never given the opportunity to address.
However, the court denied MIL No. 2 as to Zapien's implied warranty claim under § 1791.1. California courts have clarified that § 1791.1 does not require the plaintiff to present the defective vehicle to an authorized representative. Evidence of unreported defects may therefore be relevant to whether the vehicle was fit for its ordinary purposes. This denial was also without prejudice to FCA reasserting specific objections at trial.
MIL No. 3 — Out-of-Warranty Defects and Repairs
FCA sought to exclude evidence of complaints, repairs, or maintenance visits occurring outside the manufacturer's warranty period, arguing such evidence is irrelevant under the Song-Beverly Act and would artificially inflate the repair history in the jury's eyes.
The court denied MIL No. 3 on two grounds. First, relying on Donlen v. Ford Motor Co., 217 Cal. App. 4th 138 (2013), the court noted that a defect appearing after warranty expiration does not necessarily mean it did not exist during the warranty period, and post-warranty repair evidence may be admitted where it tends to show the vehicle was not properly repaired during the warranty. Second, the warranty contract contained multiple express warranties of different durations covering different vehicle components; without hearing further evidence, the court could not determine which warranty period applies to which alleged defect. The denial was without prejudice to specific objections at trial.
MIL No. 4 — Recall-Only Service Visits
FCA sought to exclude testimony characterizing recall-only service visits as repair attempts, arguing that recall work is performed regardless of whether a vehicle actually has the triggering defect, making such visits minimally probative. FCA specifically targeted recalls Y67 (January 30, 2023), 13A (August 7, 2023), and ZA3, Y43, and S43 (June 13, 2025).
The court denied MIL No. 4. Zapien disputed that the January 30, 2023 and August 7, 2023 visits were limited to recall work. More broadly, the court found recall evidence potentially relevant because a recall campaign can provide circumstantial evidence that the defect triggering the recall was present in the specific vehicle. As an example discussed at the hearing, one recall involved a fire risk from a "grid-heater relay," while one of Zapien's complaints was a "burning odor" — suggesting the recall evidence might help explain the source of her complaint. The denial was without prejudice to specific objections at trial.
Disposition
- MIL No. 1 (single-repair complaints): DENIED without prejudice. - MIL No. 2 (unreported defects): GRANTED as to § 1793.2(d)(2) claim; DENIED without prejudice as to § 1791.1 claim. - MIL No. 3 (out-of-warranty events): DENIED without prejudice. - MIL No. 4 (recall-only service visits): DENIED without prejudice.
The case is proceeding to trial.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.