Judge Won’t Certify Volvo Engine Defect Class Action Lawsuit
By Anne Bucher
A North Carolina federal judge rejected an attempt to certify a class of consumers accusing two Volvo Group units of concealing engine defects, finding that the plaintiffs failed to follow prior court instructions to pursue only statewide classes.
U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Eagles had previously rejected the plaintiffs’ bid to certify the class action lawsuit in April, but granted their request to file a second motion that would only seek to certify “a limited number of statewide classes.” She also asked the plaintiffs to clarify which state laws should apply to their breach of warranty claims. Without this clarification, she said, she will not be able to evaluate the plaintiffs’ common questions about the alleged Volvo engine defects and the extent to which Volvo allegedly failed to remedy the situation.
When the plaintiffs filed the second motion for class certification, however, they again sought to certify a nationwide class. They also failed to adequately address the judge’s concerns about which state’s laws are relevant to their class action lawsuit.
In their second motion to certify the class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs suggested they would favor North Carolina law, but would create subclasses when a conflict of law exists. Judge Eagles criticized this approach, saying that the “possibility of separate subclasses down the road is not a motion to certify statewide classes.” Further, the judge argued, the plaintiffs did not address other issues that were identified in the first denial of class certification.
“By its order allowing plaintiffs to file a second class certification motion, the court did not authorize a second bite at the apple on a nationwide class action,” Judge Eagles said. “Even if it did, plaintiffs have not resolved the court’s originally identified issues with class certification.”
The class action lawsuit was initially filed in Oct. 2011 by a group of 15 plaintiffs who accused Volvo Group North America and Volvo Trucks North America Inc. of concealing defects in their D13 and D14 truck engines that led to regular breakdowns. Instead of acknowledging and repairing the defective engines, the plaintiffs claim that Volvo failed to repair the engines, took too long to repair the engines, or forced plaintiffs to pay for the repairs. The plaintiffs initially wanted to certify a class of all U.S. residents who currently or previously owned or leased a Volvo truck with a D13 or D16 engine.
While Judge Eagles noted that the plaintiffs made a “compelling argument” that the Volvo engines were defective, she denied their motion for class certification because they failed to address her concerns about which law applies to their class action lawsuit. Under the North Carolina choice-of-law rules, warranty claims are subject to the law of the state that has “the most significant relationship” to the contract, but because the Volvo engines have significant ties to Sweden, Maryland and Virginia and are sold in every state in the United States, it is unclear which law should apply.
The plaintiffs are represented by Michael A. Caddell, Cynthia B. Chapman and Cory S. Fein of Caddell & Chapman; Mitchell A. Toups of Weller Green Toups & Terrell LLP; and John Alan Jones and G. Christopher Olson of Martin & Jones PLLC.
The Volvo Engine Defect Class Action Lawsuit is Cochran, et al. v. Volvo Group North America LLC, et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-00927, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions
