Miller et al., v. Hyundai Motor America, No. 1:2015cv04722 - Document 41 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION re: 30 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint filed by Hyundai Motor America: Before this court is defendant Hyundai Motor America's ("HMA") motion to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). Plaintiffs, a putative nationwide class of all purchasers and lessees of the Hyundai Sonata, model years 2006 through 2010 ("Class Vehicle"), are represented by six named plaintiffs-Steve Miller, Richard Kotell y, Kathleen Riordan, Charlene Liddle, Krista Pierskalla, and Rebecca McCormick. They bring suit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. While the FAC sets forth eleven separate causes of action, these claims all relate to the alleg ed defects of the Class Vehicles' braking system. Plaintiffs' claims are twofold. First, they allege that HMA is responsible and liable under warranty for the repair and replacement costs that plaintiffs have incurred as a result of the all eged defects. Secondly, plaintiffs allege that HMA "actively concealed and failed to disclose the existence and nature of said defects... at the time of purchase and thereafter." ECF No. 29, at 2. These allegations form the basis of plainti ffs' claim for breach of express warranty and their claims under various state consumer protection laws. HMA moves to dismiss these claims on a number of grounds, arguing that the FAC, like the original complaint, "fails to adequately alleg e the facts necessary to proceed beyond the motion to dismiss stage." ECF No. 31, at 1. For the reasons described above, the court grants in part and denies in part defendants HMA's motion to dismiss the FAC. As a result of this opinion, th e surviving claims are as follows: (1) plaintiff Liddle and Miller's post-purchase § 349 claims, and (2) plaintiffs Riordan and McCormick's claims under the ICFA, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505 (2017) and the UTPCPL, 73 Pa. Cons. Stat.§ 201-1 (2017), respectively. The court also redirects the parties to file supplemental briefing with respect to the question the court raised in the previous decision-whether, in light of the number of claims that have been dismissed, the amount in controversy still satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 9/29/2017) (jwh)

Download PDF
Miller et al., v. Hyundai Motor America Doc. 41 Dockets.Justia.com

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.