Facts

FCA US LLC (FCA) was a corporation that engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components. On May 11, 2016, FCA issued TSB 18-057-16 to address customer concerns regarding illumination of the malfunction indicator lamp (MIL). The TSB called for dealers to reprogram the PCM with the latest available software. This TSB was revised on June 17, 2016 by TSB 18-057-16 REV.A to address the same issue. In August 2017, FCA issued Safety Recall T23 for vehicles to reprogram the PCM with new software to cure a safety-related defect with the EGR valve that could cause the EGR valve to be operating with an aggressive seating velocity. On January 11, 2018, FCA released two Safety Recalls to resolve the stalling issue experienced by customers, Safety Recall U01 / NHTSA 18V-049 and Safety Recall U02 / NHTSA 18V-048 to address customer concerns regarding engine stalling without prior warning and potential engine component fires. On March 3, 2018, Annie Asadourian Zakiyan entered into a warranty contract with FCA regarding a 2017 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicle identification number 1C4PJLDB5HW521880 (Vehicle), which was manufactured and distributed by FCA. The warranty contract contained various warranties, including but not limited to the bumper-bumper warranty, powertrain warranty, and emission warranty. Zakiyan brought a class action complaint against FCA alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act).

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged that defendant knew since prior to plaintiff purchasing the Vehicle, that the 2017 - 2019 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles equipped with a 9HP transmission and 3.6L engine were defective, including plaintiff's 2017 Jeep Grand Cherokee, and contained one or more defects that would result in stalling, shutting off, and/or loss of power. Plaintiff argued that defendant knew and was well aware of the Vehicle was defective prior to her purchase based on pre-production and post-production testing data, aggregate warranty data, and early customer complaints, but failed to disclose this fact to plaintiff at the time of sale. Plaintiff argued that the stalling defect in the Vehicle was a dangerous safety concern because it severely affected a deriver's ability to control the car's speed, acceleration, and deceleration and made it difficult to safely merge into traffic or could cause a sudden loss of power while in motion. Plaintiff maintained that she was a reasonable consumer who interacted with sales representatives, considered defendant's advertisement, and/or other marketing materials concerning defendant's vehicles prior to purchasing her Vehicle. Finally, plaintiff alleged that defendant had an affirmative duty to promptly offer to repurchase or replace the Vehicle at the time if it failed to conform to the terms of the express warranty but failed to replace the Vehicle or make the proper restitutions. Thus, plaintiff argued that she was entitled to reimbursement of the price paid for the Vehicle less that amount directly attributable to use by plaintiff prior to the first presentation to an authorized repair facility for a nonconformity, as well as all incidental and consequential damages.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.

Result

The case settled by offer of judgment. Accordingly, the court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $69,972.