Lewis v. Chrysler
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-02631
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Lewis v. FCA US LLC, Judge Halpern denied Regina Lewis’s amended summary-judgment motion because it did not follow required court and filing rules.
Regina Lewis, who sought summary judgment, and FCA US LLC, whose pending summary-judgment motion remained subject to Lewis’s opposition.
What happened
In Lewis v. FCA US LLC, Regina Lewis asked the court to grant her summary judgment based on evidence concerning a 2020 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo. She alleged that the vehicle had flood damage, defects, warranty problems, and malfunctioned in a collision that caused her injuries.
Lewis argued that FCA US LLC was legally responsible under warranty, product-liability, negligence, and related theories. She also disputed the handling and docketing of earlier summary-judgment filings and argued that the evidence established her claims as a matter of law.
Judge Philip Halpern denied Lewis’s purported amended summary-judgment motion because it failed to comply with the judge’s individual practices, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the local civil rules. The court also reminded her that her opposition to FCA US LLC’s pending summary-judgment motion was due April 5, 2024, and that the court could potentially grant summary judgment to the nonmoving party based on the filed papers.
The detailed version
- Lewis v. Chrysler · No. 7:23-cv-02631
- Philip Halpern
- Mar. 14, 2024
Background
Regina Lewis filed what the order describes as her purported amended motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The motion concerned a 2020 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo. Lewis alleged that the vehicle had been sold as new despite flood damage and numerous defects, including leaking fluid lines, steering problems, electrical problems, and problems involving the air bag and active head restraint. She alleged that the vehicle suddenly accelerated and that its brakes and steering malfunctioned, causing collisions and personal injuries.
Lewis asserted claims or theories involving breach of express and implied warranties, strict product liability, negligence, and personal injury under New York and Michigan law. She relied on materials including electronic data from the vehicle, a police report, a technical service bulletin, warranty claims, photographs, and a practitioner’s affidavit. The opinion does not decide whether these allegations or materials establish liability.
Lewis’s Arguments
Lewis argued that the defendant’s disclosures and other evidence showed that FCA US LLC was liable as a matter of law. She also challenged the court’s handling of earlier Rule 56 filings, asserting that some filings had not been docketed or reviewed. Lewis further argued that facts attached to her motion should be treated as evidence and that the court should explain any refusal to grant her motion.
Ruling
Judge Philip Halpern denied Lewis’s purported amended Rule 56 motion, identified as Document 67, for reasons including failure to comply with the court’s individual practices, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the local civil rules. The order therefore did not grant Lewis summary judgment or resolve the underlying warranty, product-liability, negligence, or personal-injury allegations.
The court reminded Lewis that, if she intended to oppose FCA US LLC’s pending motion for summary judgment, her opposition was due April 5, 2024. The court also stated that it had given notice under Rule 56(f) that it could grant summary judgment to the nonmoving party if the motion papers supported that result, without requiring Lewis to file her own motion.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.