—
A Dodge Charger and Challenger SRT rear differential lawsuit made no progress after the plaintiffs appealed dismissal of their claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
The class action lawsuit includes 2015-2022 Dodge Charger Hellcats and 2015-2022 Dodge Challenger Hellcats.
In 2021, six Fiat Chrysler customers filed the Dodge rear differential lawsuit alleging the components are defective.
The V8 engine sports cars are supposed to handle track driving and the lawsuit says all the vehicles, “bear FCA’s Street & Racing Technology (‘SRT’) badge, indicating these are high-performance vehicles designed to be driven on both ordinary public roads and for speedways, dragstrips, and other track use.”
The owners who sued contend the rear differentials become damaged and causes failures of the pinion and ring gears, axles and differential housings.
Those plaintiffs also claim FCA knew the differentials were defective before the cars were first sold, but instead of repairing the cars before they were first sold when it would have been safer and cheaper, the automaker allegedly sold the cars they knew were dangerous and defective.
Using the Dodge cars on a track is one thing, but the differential class action alleges the cars aren’t even safe to drive on public roads. Metal shavings allegedly contaminate the differential oil which increases friction and heat and supposedly causes axle failures.
The plaintiffs even complain the rear differentials can explode and send shrapnel into areas of the undercarriage, yet Chrysler still sold the defective cars. The plaintiffs also complain they didn’t know using aftermarket components and repairs voided the warranty.
Dodge Rear Differential Lawsuit Dismissed
The district court judge dismissed the Dodge lawsuit after the plaintiffs complained about the cost to repair or replace the rear differentials. According to the class action, it can cost thousands of dollars for repairs.
Four of the six original plaintiffs complained about the expenses while two car owners didn’t claim they had any rear differential problems. But the judge found while the plaintiffs complained about the costs and how they suffered damages, none of the plaintiffs paid for any repairs to their Dodge cars.
The judge also ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek restitution and to bring claims under the laws of states in which they do not reside and in which none of their alleged “injuries” occurred.
In addition, the judge ruled it was only “conclusory” for the plaintiffs to complain that FCA made unlawful profits by selling the Chargers and Challengers SRT cars.
The differential lawsuit was dismissed. However, the judge allowed the plaintiffs to modify and refile their Dodge class action lawsuit at which time two more plaintiffs were added to the amended Dodge lawsuit. FCA filed a motion to dismiss the new class action.
The district court dismissed the fraud counts and some warranty counts before entering a partial final judgment as to the fraud counts filed by all but one of the plaintiffs. This caused six of the eight plaintiffs to file their appeal claiming the district court shouldn’t have dismissed the fraud claims.
The appeals court found the process “complicated” as the class action had been dismissed, then refiled with additional plaintiffs, then the affected vehicles were expanded. The court also concluded the lower district court judgment “was not final.”
“The District Court erred by entering a judgment under Rule 54(b) on the fraud-based counts because the judgment was not final. So we will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and instruct the District Court to vacate its January 2, 2024, order directing the entry of a partial final judgment.” — Third Circuit
CarComplaints.com will update our website if anything proceeds with the Dodge Charger and Challenger rear differential lawsuit at the district court level.
The Dodge rear differential class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware: Diaz, et at., v. FCA US LLC.
The plaintiffs are represented by Berger Montague PC, Capstone Law APC, and Gordon & Partners, P.A.