Update Mercedes Benz AMG M156 Class Action | Court’s Decision

8 Июн 2015 | Author: | No comments yet »
2014 Mercedes gl63 amg m156

Update: Mercedes Benz AMG Action for the M156 V8 Engine

on Feb 1, 2013 10:34am PST

For more a year automotive enthusiasts and rights advocates have following the Mercedes Benz action involving allegedly valve train parts in the Mercedes Benz AMG M156 V8 . The engine, twice named Performance Engine of the Year, has come under much for the materials used in its construction.

The titled, CEDRIC CHAN v. AG, MERCEDES-BENZ, MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC and GMBH, was filed in United District Court District of New on September 19, 2011. The plaintiffs a class action because it is the M156 engine contains parts which cause engine damage. The damage affect thousands of vehicle because the defective parts used in the manufacture of all M156 produced between the years and 2011. M156 engines used in the entire 6.3 AMG Mercedes model lineup. (Of note, engines were used in the of model year 2012 and C63 AMG’s, but M156 engines for those years are not believed to the allegedly defective engine Further, none of the vehicle owned by plaintiffs were with M156’s after

The number one fear for any vehicle of a 6.3L AMG model equipped an M156 V8 engine is having to pay for repair. The M156 is a race-inspired . the first of its kind, built in-house by Mercedes Benz’s division AMG. Fortunately, Benz sells there with a 4-year/50,000 mile warranty. The problem arises for owners whose engines due to the allegedly defective parts of the express warranty period.

Benz does not officially responsibility for engine damage and failure that occurs even if engine damage is by latent defects that during the warranty period. wouldn’t be so troubling and it wouldn’t as a consumer law issue if it wasn’t that the engine damage was by defectively designed parts were allegedly known to Benz at the time of sale.

Procedural History of Lawsuit

In v. DAIMLER AG, et al. four plaintiffs suit on behalf of themselves and a of other owners and lessees of Benz 6.3 AMG vehicles built M156 engines. Two of the plaintiffs and Figueroa) were California one (Earls) was a resident of Texas and one a resident of New Jersey. The suit included three other of plaintiffs: owners and lessees of 6.3 AMG’s purchased or leased in (1) (2) Texas, and (3) New Jersey, respectively.

The suit did not reach the stage of certification. The defendants filed to strike the first amended (FAC) for lack of standing, to dismiss the FAC for failure to state a upon which relief can be and motions to strike the class in the FAC.

The New Jersey District granted defendants’ motions to the FAC for lack of standing and dismissed the FAC prejudice. The defendants’ other were denied as moot plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed.

M156 Engine Parts

The engine’s alleged defects defective camshaft adjusters and the camshaft lobes made of are incompatible through extended use the engine’s valve lifters, are made of harder steel.


According to Fitzhugh, the lifters since been improved [by Benz performance wing A newer version, used in the advanced AMG engine called the (which is built in the SLS AMG) bleed down when the is off, thus reducing the of premature wear in the valve when the engine is restarted.

Benz and AMG Allegedly Knew of the

In their suit, the plaintiffs that the defendants knew of the since 2007 and continued to M156 engines with parts . Further, plaintiffs that Mercedes Benz the new vehicle warranty attached to new vehicle when a vehicle would present to a Mercedes authorized service center complaints of ticking coming the engine’s valve train and the center allegedly acting to MBUSA’s directives would the vehicle owner that the was normal, despite their knowledge to the contrary.

There is also evidence of Benz service bulletins from 2007 and 2010 address the M156 camshaft and ticking sounds in the engine, As you will see, the New Jersey Court was not convinced that the bulletins tended to prove the of defective parts.

The Mercedes express warranty provides for Mercedes Benz service to repair or replace product that manifest during the warranty period.

The causes of stated by plaintiffs in the suit breach of express and implied under the Magnuson-Moss Act, of express and implied common law and violation of New Jersey Consumer Act.

Plaintiffs contended the defective parts used in the of their vehicles’ engines their engines’ performance and reduced the value of their They each stated had they been told the vehicle defects by the defendant they purchased their they would not have through with the purchase.

All plaintiffs had brought their to MBUSA authorized service with complaints of ticking coming from their engines and they were that the sound was normal. One of the vehicles suffered engine in 2010, which was still the period when Mercedes was installing allegedly defective in the M156 engines. The plaintiff his vehicle to an authorized service while his vehicle was under warranty. Repairs were but the replacement parts were of the defective batch.

To Sue on Behalf of Others Plaintiff have Standing to Sue in their Own

The plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed none of the plaintiffs could that they had standing to Standing is a jurisdictional issue . A court does not have matter jurisdiction to decide the of a case if the plaintiff cannot standing to sue. That is, the must show that have suffered an actual, injury-in-fact (their rights affected), that was caused by the complained-of conduct which is of redress by a favorable judicial

Could Plaintiffs Show

Read this string of citations upon which the New District Court relied in their opinion and see where you the court will go with reasoning:

Courts throughout the have ‘almost uniformly that time-limited [and warranties do not protect buyers hidden defects defects may exist before, but typically are not until after, the expiration of the period. See, Dewey v. AG . 558 F. Supp. 2d 505, 519 (D.N.J. (quoting Canal Elec. Co. v. Elec. Co . 973 F.2d 988, 993 Cir. 1992)); see also v. Volkswagen of Am. Inc. . 795 F.2d 250 (2d Cir. 1986) (holding express warranties did not cover defects manifesting themselves the expiration of the time and mileage of the relevant warranties); Daugherty v. Am. Motor Co. Inc. . 144 Cal. 4th 830 (2d DCA 2006) (Several courts expressly rejected the proposition a latent defect, discovered the limits of a written warranty, may the basis for a valid express claim if the warrantor knew of the at the time of sale.)

A seller may sell a defective product by an express warranty, and if the product after the expiration of the warranty and the buyer has to pay for repair of the product, the is not in breach of warranty.

Plaintiffs: Chan (CA resident) and (CA resident)

Injury: Being free repair during period

Were they No.

Reason: Chan’s car had too many on the odometer when he presented it to the for repair, thus his car wasn’t by the express warranty. Figueroa’s car was too old he took his car to the dealer, and also not under express warranty.

The covers and Mercedes Benz repair defects that during the warranty period. argued that proof that the defects in their manifested during the warranty They pointed to the 2007 bulletin dealing with of the camshaft adjusters as evidence of Benz’s acknowledgement of a known that existed during the period.

The District Court did not that the service bulletins admissions of a known defect . The stated that service are generated in response to consumer which cause the manufacturer to and diagnose potential issues. reasoned that if the mere act of a bulletin equaled an admission of manufacturers would be unwilling to with their customers’

The Court’s reasoning seems too If the manufacturer did not respond in good to their customers’ warranty they would be in breach of Service bulletins can very serve as a basis for a manufacturer’s of a known problem with products. But, additional evidence would be needed to such a finding. And, plaintiffs Chan and Figueroa did not about engine failure their warranty term.

The went on to explain in their that they do not believe is good reason to change view that express do not cover repairs that are by latent defects that during the time and mileage period, but caused product outside of the express warranty

Buy lego technic 795f in rupees

The Court reasoned that all failures that manifest the warranty period can be traced to a defect that existed the warranty period . But, the does not distinguish between design defects that are to cause product failure but are used for production and products are not known to be defectively designed but fail according to a defective rate.

Nevertheless, the Court reasoned for a vehicle owner to prove sufficient to satisfy the constitutional of standing, the vehicle must not performed as promised during the period. Despite plaintiffs’ that their engines’ wearing prematurely during the period, they could not how they were injured that time. Even if Benz knew of a latent during the warranty period, the would not adopt a rule would make failure of a actionable based on such as it would render meaningless limitations in warranty coverage. v. Volkswagen of Am. Inc . p. 750, supra .

Bartok (NJ resident), Figueroa (CA Earls (TX resident), Chan (CA

Injury:

(a) Diminution of value of caused by alleged engine

Were they injured? No

None of the plaintiffs presented any to support the inference that either traded in or sold vehicles for a loss because of the parts. In addition, the Court was not by the plaintiffs’ claims that had known about the defects would not have purchased vehicles.

It is a very difficult to collect proof of a vehicle’s reduced market value is tied to public perception of an engine. This is especially when the only facts by plaintiffs to show defective in the M156 engine are the Mercedes service bulletins that customer complaints and that instruct technicians to repair train parts upon

(b) Repair costs associated product defects.

Were injured? No

Reason: None of the plaintiffs money during the warranty to repair their vehicles.

New Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA)

Chan (CA resident), Figueroa (CA Earls (TX resident),

Injury: Benz allegedly concealed misrepresented the condition of the vehicles to

Were they injured? The plaintiffs did not raise facts in the FAC to a sufficient connection with New that would allow to sue under New Jersey Law.

The New Jersey District Court only look to the facts in the plaintiffs’ First Amended to determine whether they had Based on the facts so provided, the did not find the out-of-court plaintiffs’ purchases and/or repairs had a connection with New Jersey. the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the New Jersey law.

In the plaintiffs’ brief to defendants’ motion to the out-of-state plaintiffs alleged that they believed a finding that their had a sufficient connection with New These facts may give standing to sue under the NJCFA. these facts were not in the FAC, and therefore, the Court not consider them in determining the of standing.

Disposition of Case

The opinion dismissing the plaintiffs’ FAC was on 11/09/12. The plaintiffs had 30 days that date to cure the in their complaint and file amended complaint. No further were made by plaintiffs. on 1/07/13, the Court signed an to close the file for the case.

records



Related Posts::

Here you can write a commentary on the recording "Update Mercedes Benz AMG M156 Class Action | Court’s Decision".

* Required fields
All the reviews are moderated.
Twitter-news
Our partners
Follow us
Contact us
Our contacts

dima911@gmail.com

Born in the USSR

423360519

About this site

For all questions about advertising, please contact listed on the site.


Mercedes-Benz catalog with specifications, pictures, ratings, reviews and discusssions about cars Mercedes-Benz.