Singh v. Stellantis N.V.

Background

The plaintiffs filed an action against FCA US LLC alleging a design defect in Jeep 4xe vehicles. They alleged that, although the vehicles were promoted as having electric-only capabilities, entering “Fuel and Oil Refresh Mode” caused them to lose electric-only battery operation, particularly in cold weather. The plaintiffs asserted common-law fraud, statutory consumer-protection, breach-of-warranty, and unjust-enrichment claims on behalf of a proposed nationwide class and seven state-based subclasses.

A separate action against the same defendant, referred to in the opinion as the Crowell action, had been filed in the District of Delaware on January 5, 2023. It alleged the same design defect, involved the same types of vehicles, and asserted fraud, consumer-protection, warranty, and unjust-enrichment claims for a proposed nationwide class and state-based subclasses. The plaintiffs’ action was filed on January 31, 2023.

Motion to Transfer

FCA US LLC moved to transfer the case to the District of Delaware under the first-to-file rule. That rule generally calls for the court handling a later-filed action to defer to the court handling an earlier-filed action when the cases are substantially similar. Courts consider the lawsuits’ filing order, the similarity of the parties or proposed classes, and the similarity of the issues.

The court found all three factors satisfied. The Delaware case was filed first. Because both cases were class actions against the same defendant, the court compared the proposed classes and found that the nationwide classes were virtually identical and that the state subclasses still overlapped because the cases sought to represent at least some of the same people. The court also found substantial overlap in the issues because both cases alleged the same defect in the same vehicles manufactured and advertised by FCA US LLC and sought nearly identical relief under similar or identical legal theories.

The court further found that the case could have been brought in Delaware. It determined that the Delaware court would have subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, that FCA US LLC was subject to general personal jurisdiction there because it was incorporated there, and that venue would be proper there. The court therefore applied the first-to-file rule and stated that it did not need to separately analyze the convenience factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Request for Judicial Notice

FCA US LLC asked the court to take judicial notice of three documents filed in the Delaware action: the class-action complaint, the first amended class-action complaint, and the then-current docket report. Judicial notice permits a court to accept certain facts or documents without requiring formal proof when they are publicly available and not reasonably disputable.

The court granted the request as to the complaint and first amended complaint because they were publicly available and not subject to reasonable dispute. It denied the request as to the docket report because the court did not rely on that document.

Disposition

The court GRANTED FCA US LLC’s Motion to Transfer to the District of Delaware. It also GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART FCA US LLC’s Request for Judicial Notice. The clerk was directed to close the file. The order did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ defect or consumer claims.