Miller v. Hyundai Motor America
| Steve Miller, Rebecca McCormick, Richard Kotelly, Kathleen Riordan, Krista Pierskalla and Charlene Liddle |
| Hyundai Motor America |
| 7:2015cv04722 |
| June 17, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Kings |
| Kenneth M. Karas |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1453 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
41
OPINION re: 30 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint filed by Hyundai Motor America: Before this court is defendant Hyundai Motor America's ("HMA") motion to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). Plaintiffs, a putative nationwide class of all purchasers and lessees of the Hyundai Sonata, model years 2006 through 2010 ("Class Vehicle"), are represented by six named plaintiffs-Steve Miller, Richard Kotell y, Kathleen Riordan, Charlene Liddle, Krista Pierskalla, and Rebecca McCormick. They bring suit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. While the FAC sets forth eleven separate causes of action, these claims all relate to the alleg ed defects of the Class Vehicles' braking system. Plaintiffs' claims are twofold. First, they allege that HMA is responsible and liable under warranty for the repair and replacement costs that plaintiffs have incurred as a result of the all eged defects. Secondly, plaintiffs allege that HMA "actively concealed and failed to disclose the existence and nature of said defects... at the time of purchase and thereafter." ECF No. 29, at 2. These allegations form the basis of plainti ffs' claim for breach of express warranty and their claims under various state consumer protection laws. HMA moves to dismiss these claims on a number of grounds, arguing that the FAC, like the original complaint, "fails to adequately alleg e the facts necessary to proceed beyond the motion to dismiss stage." ECF No. 31, at 1. For the reasons described above, the court grants in part and denies in part defendants HMA's motion to dismiss the FAC. As a result of this opinion, th e surviving claims are as follows: (1) plaintiff Liddle and Miller's post-purchase § 349 claims, and (2) plaintiffs Riordan and McCormick's claims under the ICFA, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505 (2017) and the UTPCPL, 73 Pa. Cons. Stat.§ 201-1 (2017), respectively. The court also redirects the parties to file supplemental briefing with respect to the question the court raised in the previous decision-whether, in light of the number of claims that have been dismissed, the amount in controversy still satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 9/29/2017) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
23
OPINION re: 13 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, filed by Hyundai Motor America. For the reasons that follow, HMA's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. For the reasons set forth in this opi nion, the following claims are dismissed with prejudice because they are time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitation: Kotelly's MCPA claim, and Miller, Liddle, and Kotelly's warranty claims. Plaintiffs McCormick, Pierskall a, and Riordan's warranty claims are dismissed without prejudice because those plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead that their Class Vehicles fell under Warranty. Likewise, Counts II through VI, encompassing plaintiffs' causes of action und er the Illinois, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania consumer fraud statutes are dismissed without prejudice, as the Court found the allegations not to be sufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). What remains are Liddle a nd Miller's claims under the New York law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349. If the complaint is indeed limited to Liddle and Miller's state-law claims, the amount in controversy may no longer be sufficient under either 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a ) or the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). In that case, the Court would lack subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter. The Court will defer this determination until the Court has conferred with counsel about resolving this issue. (As further set forth in this Opinion) (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 9/28/2016) (kl)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
