Tamara Burns  |  September 2, 2015

Category: Consumer News

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Nissan class action lawsuitOn Monday, Nissan filed a motion with an Illinois court to dismiss a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the floorboards in certain Nissan vehicles are defective.

The Nissan class action lawsuit was filed by Marie DeMaria and others in April of this year. DeMaria alleges that Nissan knew that the floorboards installed in their vehicles were prone to rust and deterioration and chose to do nothing about the problem.

DeMaria claims that the Nissan floorboards in Altimas of model years 2002 to 2006 were unable to withstand normal wear and tear, have improper drainage, and rust all the way through the metal so the road is visible beneath the car while it is driven. She alleges that Nissan failed to disclose the defect and would not pay for repairs, leading to claims of fraud and negligence against the company.

In its motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit, the defendant said that the plaintiffs’ claims of Nissan having prior knowledge of the floorboards’ propensity to rust were not founded. Such claims, according to Nissan, were “not only speculative, but implausible.”

Nissan outlined five specific arguments in their request for dismissal of the proposed class action lawsuit:

  • “The out-of-state plaintiffs’ claims fail for lack of personal jurisdiction.” There were 18 members of the proposed Class who resided in 16 different states and the original lawsuit was filed in Illinois, so the out-of-state plaintiffs, Nissan claims, do not have jurisdiction as the class action lawsuit currently stands based on the varying consumer protection laws in the different states.

 

  • “Plaintiffs’ fraud claims fail because the FAC [First Amended Complaint] still alleges no facts that would show Nissan knew the allegedly concealed fact at the time of sale.” DeMaria alleges that Nissan’s pretesting of the vehicles should have shown the defective floorboard issue. However, Nissan argues the earliest complaint of the floorboards by a plaintiff was in 2009, but most complaints surfaced around 2014, eight to 12 years after the cars in question were manufactured.

 

  • “Plaintiffs have not pleaded the other circumstances of fraud with peculiarity.” Nissan says there is no clear defendant in the case because allegedly none of the plaintiffs said they dealt directly with Nissan, and three admitted they did not. Many plaintiffs bought the vehicles used and from private parties, so Nissan felt this was not clear to establish the Class Members worked with Nissan or its agents. Nissan also states that courts have ruled in prior lawsuits that used cars bought from private parties could not sue the manufacturer for concealment and there is not a duty to disclose risks of any issues that may occur post-warranty.

 

  • “Plaintiffs’ implied-warranty-of-merchantability claim fails because they do not allege their cars were unmerchantable when delivered.” Regarding this issue, Nissan simply explains, “Implied warranties do not last forever.”

 

  • “The economic-loss doctrine bars any tort claim for negligence and the implied-warranty claim under Massachusetts law.” Because the plaintiffs did not allege any personal injury, the plaintiffs just state what “may” happen as the result of the allegedly defective floorboards, Nissan did not feel claims of negligence and implied warranty should be allowed.

 

DeMaria is represented by Edward A. Wallace, Amy E. Keller and Adam Prom of Wexler Wallace LLP, Matthew Dameron of Williams Dirks Dameron LLC, Eric H. Gibbs and David Stein of Gibbs Law Group LLP, Norman E. Siegel of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Tim E. Dollar of Dollar Burns & Becker LLC, Gregory F. Coleman, Mark E. Silvey and Lisa Ann White of Greg Coleman Law PC, and John A. Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group.

The Nissan Defective Floorboards Class Action Lawsuit is Marie DeMaria v. Nissan North America Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03321, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

UPDATE: On July 7, 2016, the Nissan Defective Floorboards lawsuit was dismissed.

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.


One thought on Nissan Files Motion to Dismiss Faulty Floorboards Class Action

  1. Top Class Actions says:

    UPDATE: On July 7, 2016, the Nissan Defective Floorboards lawsuit was dismissed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. By submitting your comment and contact information, you agree to receive marketing emails from Top Class Actions regarding this and/or similar lawsuits or settlements, and/or to be contacted by an attorney or law firm to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you if you qualify. Required fields are marked *

Please note: Top Class Actions is not a settlement administrator or law firm. Top Class Actions is a legal news source that reports on class action lawsuits, class action settlements, drug injury lawsuits and product liability lawsuits. Top Class Actions does not process claims and we cannot advise you on the status of any class action settlement claim. You must contact the settlement administrator or your attorney for any updates regarding your claim status, claim form or questions about when payments are expected to be mailed out.