—
Jeep Wranger and Ram 1500 eTorque problems caused owners to file a lawsuit which alleges the “mild hybrid” eTorque systems are defective and cause the vehicles to stall.
FCA has been battling the eTorque lawsuit since it was filed in February 2023, and now the federal judge hearing the case has ruled the claims of several plaintiffs will be sent to arbitration.
The Jeep and Ram eTorque Class Action Lawsuit
According to the lawsuit, the 2019-2022 Ram 1500 and 2019-2022 Jeep Wrangler eTorque systems incorporate braking and shifting to create battery energy to charge the 48-volt battery. The 48-volt battery charges the 12-volt battery to power accessories.
The lawsuit says eTorque provides support to the crankshaft to increase acceleration while driving the Jeeps and Rams.
The Chrysler eTorque class action lawsuit also alleges the 2019-2022 Ram 1500 and 2019-2022 Jeep Wrangler eTorque systems can cause sudden activations of the emergency brakes while driving.
In addition, Ram and Jeep owners contend eTorque problems will cause drivers to see warnings about needing to shift into PARK, and sometimes the Jeep and Ram vehicles allegedly suddenly shift into PARK on their own.
The plaintiffs contend the eTorque mild hybrid systems are connected to the automatic stop/start features of the Jeep Wrangler SUVs and Ram 1500 trucks and supposedly should improve fuel economy.
Repairs by dealerships allegedly fail to remedy the eTorque problems, and a recall of Ram 1500 eTorque trucks allegedly did nothing to help.
Jeep and Ram eTorque Lawsuit — Motion to Compel Arbitration
The automaker filed a motion to compel arbitration for several eTorque lawsuit plaintiffs.
However, the plaintiffs argue Chrysler cannot compel arbitration once a motion to dismiss has been filed. And therein lies the rub, because FCA did file a motion to dismiss prior to filing the motion to compel.
Many times courts will block any attempt at arbitration once a motion to dismiss has been filed because if a company wanted a plaintiff to arbitrate their claims, that company would have started with a motion to compel.
The judge begins by noting how multiple plaintiffs entered into sales contracts which included arbitration provisions, but those agreements are not identical for all plaintiffs. According to Judge Matthew F. Leitman, “some of the Arbitration Provisions include materially different wording, terminology, and requirements.”
“While the Arbitration Provisions differ in some important respects, they all share one key similarity: a clause that purports to delegate questions about the arbitrability of any claim to the arbitrator in the first instance.” — Judge Leitman
The plaintiffs insist FCA waived its right to compel arbitration by filing a motion to dismiss, but the judge “disagrees with that argument and concludes that FCA has not waived its right to seek arbitration.”
The judge says in many cases the plaintiffs would be correct, but not in this one where the arbitration agreements are all different. In addition, prior to filing its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Chrysler told the judge all necessary paperwork and agreements were being collected to learn which plaintiffs signed arbitration agreements.
The automaker had also told the judge early on it needed time not only to collect the paperwork, but to also determine what the arbitration agreements said.
“Finally, the Arbitration Plaintiffs have not cited, and the Court has not identified, any case in which the Sixth Circuit has found that a defendant waived its right to seek arbitration under circumstances like those present in this case. Simply put, FCA could not have moved earlier to compel arbitration based on a ‘standard’ arbitration agreement entered into by all Plaintiffs because there was no such agreement.” — Judge Leitman
It will now be an arbitrator who will decide if Chrysler has the right to compel arbitration. If an arbitrator determines FCA may not compel arbitration, the plaintiffs may file a motion to lift the current stay and proceed with the merits of their claims in this eTorque class action lawsuit.
The eTorque class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan: Fisher et al., v. FCA US LLC.
The plaintiffs are represented by The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Newsom Law PLC.