Tarsio v. FCA US LLC

Background

Anthony Tarsio sued FCA US LLC individually and on behalf of a proposed nationwide class. He alleged that certain 2022 Ram 1500, Ram 2500, and Ram 3500 Chassis Cab vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating below 10,000 pounds had defective rearview camera systems that could work intermittently or fail. He asserted claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, New York consumer-protection statutes, warranty law, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

Tarsio alleged that he bought a 2022 Ram 1500 from a third-party dealership in New York in or around February 2022. He said he noticed the camera problem shortly after buying the vehicle, returned to the dealership three times during his first month of ownership, and was told on the third visit that FCA knew of a software defect but had not yet created a solution. He also alleged that his vehicle was involved in an accident while he was backing out of his driveway and the rearview camera failed. The complaint did not state whether he later obtained the repair offered through Recall 22V-407, which FCA announced in June 2022 under the supervision of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Motion and standing analysis

FCA moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, including whether a plaintiff has standing. Standing requires a plaintiff to show a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct and likely to be addressed by a favorable decision.

The court addressed standing first. It held that Tarsio had not plausibly alleged a concrete, imminent injury traceable to FCA. The court reasoned that the NHTSA-backed recall offered free repairs and reimbursement for prior repairs. In the court’s view, that remedy addressed Tarsio’s theories that he overpaid for the vehicle or that it had diminished value because of the alleged defect. Tarsio did not allege that the recall repair was ineffective, and he did not allege that he or proposed class members continued to experience rearview-camera problems after receiving the repair.

The court also rejected Tarsio’s other injury theories as pleaded. It found that allegations of diminished vehicle value and performance were conclusory and unsupported by specific facts. It likewise found insufficient factual support for the claimed loss of use, enjoyment, and utility because Tarsio did not allege that he stopped using the vehicle or could not drive it. The court concluded that injunctive relief was also not supported because FCA had already initiated a recall offering the requested repair-related remedy.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing under Rule 12(b)(1). It did not decide FCA’s arguments that the court lacked personal jurisdiction or that the complaint failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted FCA’s motion to dismiss, dismissed all claims without prejudice, and granted Tarsio leave to file an amended complaint as to all claims by April 29, 2024. The order stated that claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice if Tarsio did not timely amend and could not show good cause for the failure.

Judge Nelson S. Roman directed FCA to answer or otherwise respond by May 13, 2024 if Tarsio filed an amended complaint.