AutoZone Must Face Defective Timing Chain Tensioners Class Action

Plaintiffs may still hold AutoZone to representations of product quality, following a federal judge’s order preserving an AutoZone class action lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Staci M. Yandle partially granted and partially denied AutoZone’s motion to dismiss this consumer class action lawsuit. The judge determined that AutoZone’s advertisement of the car parts at issue as meeting or exceeding original equipment standards is a question of fact suitable for resolution by a jury.

Plaintiffs Steve Williamson and Rhonda Christine Lemaster claim AutoZone has been selling defective timing chain tensioners for use in Chrysler vehicles.

They claim AutoZone was aware of the defect yet continued to market the tensioners without alerting consumers to the problem.

According to the plaintiffs, AutoZone represented these tensioners as being “precision machined with high grade material for greater strength and durability.” The advertisement assured plaintiffs that these tensioners met or exceeded original equipment manufacturer specifications for manufacturing and material.

AutoZone moved for dismissal in December 2016. The company argued that the representations at issue were only product descriptions or “puffery” – statements about the quality of a product that may be exaggerated but are ultimately non-actionable. The company argued these statements do not constitute a written warranty.

Judge Yandle found that these representations form an adequate basis on which to base a claim for breach of written warranty under Illinois law. Plaintiffs have adequately invoked these representations and alleged AutoZone failed to live up to them in a way that properly states a claim for breach, the judge said.

Over AutoZone’s argument to the contrary, the judge also found plaintiffs have alleged facts specific enough to state a claim for common law fraud. Their claim for fraudulent concealment was dismissed, however, because there was no allegation the defendants had exercised “overwhelming influence” over the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of implied warranty of merchantability failed against defendant S.A. Gear because of what’s known as a lack of privity.

Under Illinois law, a claim for breach of implied warranty is generally only good against the merchant and not against the manufacturer – unless the plaintiff can establish the requisite contractual relationship, or “privity,” between the manufacturer and the merchant.

Judge Yandle determined that privity has not been established here between manufacturer S.A. Gear and merchant AutoZone.

Plaintiffs also brought a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. Judge Yandle dismissed this claim however, finding that it did not allege a RICO “enterprise” that is separate and distinct from the defendants themselves.

Judge Yandle rendered all dismissals without prejudice, affording the plaintiffs an opportunity to fix the relevant defects and file an amended complaint.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys John J. Driscoll and Gregory J. Pals of The Driscoll Firm PC.

The AutoZone Defective Timing Chain Class Action Lawsuit is Steve Williamson, et al. v. S.A. Gear Company Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00365, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

UPDATE: On Sept. 26, 2018, a plaintiff request for voluntary dismissal was recently denied by a federal judge, finding that the defendants in the AutoZone class action lawsuit have invested too much time and effort into litigation for dismissal without prejudice.