Judge trims Mercedes sunroof class action

Mercedes sunroof class action lawsuit overview: 

• Who: A Georgia federal judge trimmed claims from a class action lawsuit filed against Mercedes-Benz USA by a group of consumers. 
• Why: The consumers allege that Mercedes sold certain vehicles equipped with defective panoramic sunroofs prone to randomly shattering under normal conditions. 
• Where: The Mercedes class action lawsuit was filed in Georgia federal court. 

A federal judge in Georgia trimmed a class action lawsuit filed against Mercedes-Benz USA over claims the automaker sold certain vehicles with defective panoramic sunroofs prone to randomly shattering under normal conditions. 

Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. threw out claims of unjust enrichment, express warranty and others brought under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; he ruled the act can not apply to complaints in a federal district court if the number of plaintiffs is less than 100 individuals. 

However, Thrash still allowed claims of fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranty and ones under several state consumer protection laws to remain. 

A group of consumers argue Mercedes profited off the sale of potentially unsafe vehicles due to their being equipped with panoramic sunroofs they allege can shatter while the vehicle is being driven. 

Judge rules ‘valid contract’ existed between Mercedes, customers

Thrash, in trimming the unjust enrichment claims, ruled a “valid contract” did exist between Mercedes and its customers. 

“The doctrine of unjust enrichment applies in the absence of a written contract between parties; where such a contract exists, however, it is the contract that governs the dispute and neither party can rely on unjust enrichment,” Thrash wrote.

In declining to strike down the express warranty claims, however, the judge found Mercedes had correctly argued that two of the consumers’ claims must be thrown out due to a failure to comply with a presuit notice requirement. 

The consumers in question were found to have shown their damaged vehicles to their own car dealers, rather than notifying Mercedes about the defect before filing a complaint, as required by warranty. 

Several other claims brought under consumer laws in the states Alabama, Georgia, Virginia and California were also allowed to proceed. 

In other news involving the automaker, Mercedes issued recalls for more than 137,000 model year 2020-2024 vehicles earlier this year over concerns broadly revolving around bad welds on an accelerator pedal, faulty fuses and a transmission shifting issue.

Have you purchased or leased a Mercedes-Benz vehicle with a defective sunroof? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by  Eric D. Barton and Melody Dickson of Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, James M. Terrell of Methvin Terrell Yancey Stephens & Miller PC, Robert Brent Irby of Irby Law LLC, and John Ross Bartholomew IV and James Cameron Tribble of The Barnes Law Group LLC.

The Mercedes sunroof class action lawsuit is Bolling, et al. v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-0671, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Consumers ask judge not to dismiss GM defective transmission class action
• Ford recalls vehicles, faces class actions in July, August
• Tesla issues recall for Model X vehicles due to roof trim defect
• BMW issues recall for 720K vehicles over water pump issue