Jaguar Class Action Continues After Several Claims Dismissed

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.

A Jaguar class action lawsuit will continue on breach of warranty claims after all other allegations were dismissed by a federal judge.

U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler let the plaintiffs’ claim for breach of express warranty continue, finding that their Jaguar class action lawsuit alleged sufficient factual assertions to make such a claim plausible. Plaintiff Victorya Manakin’s claim for breach of implied warranty will also be allowed to go forward.

The judge dismissed the rest of plaintiffs’ claims in the Jaguar class action lawsuit, including claims of common law fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of the imlplied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

Judge Chesler also dismissed plaintiff Amy Block’s claim for breach of implied warranty, finding that the statute of limitations had run out on that claim. The doctrine of equitable tolling did not apply to stop the limitations period from running, the judge said.

The dismissed claims have been dismissed without prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs a chance to reassert them without the purported defects.

Block and Manakin are the named plaintiffs in this Jaguar-Land Rover class action lawsuit that was filed in 2015. They allege several recent model years’ of Land Rover LR2s were built with a defective control module that shuts off improperly when the engine is turned off. The module draws power from the battery, draining it until it can no longer start the engine, the plaintiffs say.

Block says that after trying a replacement battery, and notifying Land Rover several times, the company failed to remedy the defect.

In his opinion and order, Judge Chesler commented that the first and second counts of the class action lawsuit – alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and common law fraud, respectively – contained only “abstract and general statements, alleging conscious misrepresentation.” He said that though the rest of the Jaguar lawsuit makes allegations of manufacturing defects, it similarly lacks specific details about any misrepresentation.

For similar reasons, Judge Chesler also dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. He found the plaintiffs’ allegations did not make it plausible that Jaguar acted “with the objective of preventing Plaintiffs from receiving their reasonably expected fruits under the contract,” nor did they support the idea that Jaguar had “unilaterally destroyed Plaintiffs’ expectations under the contract without legitimate purpose.”

As for the plaintiffs’ third count, of unjust enrichment, Judge Chesler determined that the plaintiffs failed to plead the required direct relationship between the plaintiff and defendant.

Block and Manakin are proposing to lead a Class consisting of everyone in the U.S. who owned a 2008 to 2015 Land Rover LR2 or any other Land Rover model that contains the alleged electrical defect.

Plaintiffs’ counsel are Bruce H. Nagel and Greg M. John of Nagel Rice LLP.

The Jaguar Battery Defect Class Action Lawsuit is Block, et al. v. Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-05957, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.