Drivers Fight Bid to Toss Chrysler Pacifica Stalling Defect Class Action

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.

Drivers are firing back at Fiat Chrysler’s attempt to toss out a class action lawsuit claiming Pacifica vehicles are defective, after extensive back and forth with the company over the last few months.

Plaintiffs Ryan and Sarah Wildin countered Chrysler’s attempt to have a court throw out their proposed class action lawsuit claiming that the company’s Pacifica vehicles are defective.

In February, the auto manufacturer claimed that the drivers had not met the requirements to file a class action lawsuit. However, the Wildins countered by saying that such requirements were superseded by the fact that the company knew or should have known that the vehicles were defective, and actively concealed this fact from consumers.

The Wildins first filed their class action lawsuit in December 2017, claiming that 2017 and 2018 Chrysler Pacifica vehicles possessed a defect that caused the vans to shut off or stall while being driven at high speeds, thus endangering drivers, passengers, and others.

The plaintiffs state that they purchased a 2017 Pacifica, and claim that had they known of the defect, they would not have paid as much for the vehicle or would not have purchased it at all. They seek damages on behalf of themselves and all similarly affected consumers.

The Chrysler Pacifica defect class action lawsuit claims that Fiat Chrysler violated California consumer protection law, competition law, as well as both state and federal warranty laws. Additionally, the Wildins claim that the company unjustly enriched itself from the sale of the allegedly defective vehicles.

In February of this year, Chrysler aimed to have the Pacifica class action lawsuit tossed, stating that the Wildins had not met the requirements for a class action lawsuit because they did not give the company 30 days of notice, which is required under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Additionally, the company claimed that the Wildins failed to meet other requirements to plead claims of wrongdoing.

The Wildins then amended their claims in March in response to the move to dismiss. Nonetheless, the company hit back again at the Pacifica stalling defect class action lawsuit in April, this time attempting to have claims of unjust enrichment and unfair competition dismissed from the complaint.

In the most recent iteration of the legal back and forth, the Wildins claim that they have sufficiently alleged that the company knew of the defect. They claim that the fact that the company filed consumer reports with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and issued service bulletins that both addressed the defect shows that the company did have knowledge that the Pacifica vehicles stalled and stopped randomly. Thus, the Wildins claim that the company knowingly endangered consumers.

The Wildins are represented by Jordan L. Lurie, Tarek H. Zohdy, and Cody R. Padgett of Capstone Law APC.

The Fiat Chrysler Pacifica Stalling Defect Class Action Lawsuit is Wildin, et al. v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-02594, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.