Land Rover North America, Inc.
Class Action Lawsuit Against Land Rover North America, Inc.
Summary of the Pending Case: On November 20, 2006, SFMS filed a class action complaint ("Complaint") in the Superior Court of California against Land Rover of North America, Inc. ("Land Rover" or "Defendant"), alleging that Land Rover LR3 model tires wear unevenly and prematurely, thus causing owners and lessees to replace the tires after a very short life-span (“California State Court Action”). Land Rover issued technical service bulletin LA 204-005 ("TSB") in the United States in October 2006, which covers VIN Nos. 5A000360 to 6A403382. The TSB states that uneven tire wear may be caused by a degree of bush settle that affects the geometry of the tires, increasing tire wear. In October 2006, Land Rover also issued TSB LS 204-008 in the United States, which covers Range Rover (LS) VIN Nos. 6A900129 to 6A970174. TSB LS 204-008 likewise attributes premature tire wear in these vehicles to the steering alignment geometry of the affected vehicles experiencing "bushing settlement."
Status of Pending Case:
On March 1, 2007, SFMS filed an Amended Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) against Land Rover in the California State Court Action for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Secret Warranty Act, as well as breach of state consumer warranty statutes. The Amended Complaint, among other things, expands the proposed class in the original Complaint to include California owners and lessees of year 2006 LR3 vehicles. Defendant answered Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in May 2007. Discovery is ongoing in the case and a hearing took place on May 5, 2012 on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification.
In 2007, Plaintiffs filed three actions in the Central District of California against Land Rover on behalf of Michigan, Ohio and Florida owners and lessees. In 2008, Plaintiffs moved for class certification. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion in September of 2008. Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The actions were stayed pending the appeal. On January 27, 2009, the Ninth Circuit granted the petitions of Plaintiffs Wolin and Gable for permission to appeal the District Court’s Orders denying class certification. Oral argument concerning the class certification decision was held on June 11, 2010 before the Ninth Circuit. On August 17, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision reversing the United States District Court for the Central District's denial of the motions for class certification filed on behalf of Plaintiffs, Kenneth Gable and Brian Wolin. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court abused its discretion when it concluded that the proposed class could not show that common issues predominate. The Ninth Circuit also found that Plaintiffs satisfied the typicality requirement for class certification. Finally, the Ninth Circuit held that class-wide adjudication of Plaintiffs' claims is superior to other means of adjudicating the case. On July 25, 2011, the United States District Court issued an order certifying consumer protection claims on behalf of Florida, Michigan, and Ohio classes. In December 2011, class notice was approved and has been sent out to class members.To view a copy of the Florida Class Notice, please click here. To view a copy of the Michigan Class Notice, please click here. To view a copy of the Ohio Class Notice, please click here.
Additional state court actions were filed against Land Rover in 2008 and removed to Federal Court in California as a part of a multi-district litigation (“MDL Action”). These cases include complaints that were filed against Land Rover on behalf of Illinois, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin purchasers and lessees. In January 2012, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the MDL Action on behalf of purchasers and lessees of these states, as well as seeking a nationwide class under New Jersey law. SFMS has also filed class action complaints against Land Rover on behalf of Connecticut and Maryland owners and lessees. On June 16, 2010, the Court issued an order remanding the Connecticut and Maryland cases from the Federal Court to their respective state courts. In the Connecticut action, Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification in May 2012.
Send us your information
1. Contact Info
Contact Us: If you would like to receive additional information concerning this action, please click here.
Send Us Information: If you have information about this action that you would like to provide us, please click here.
This page was last updated: 2012-05-23 15:24:21