Garcia et al v. Chrysler Group LLC

Track this case

Case Number:

1:14-cv-08926

Court:

New York Southern

Nature of Suit:

Other Statutory Actions

Multi Party Litigation:

Class Action

Judge:

Katherine B. Forrest

Firms

Companies

Sectors & Industries:

  1. October 23, 2015

    Chrysler, Drivers Settle Module Defect Class Action

    A proposed class of drivers who accused Chrysler of concealing a power module defect in its vehicles told a New York federal judge on Thursday that each member has individually reached a settlement with the automaker. Correction: An earlier story incorrectly reported that 10 plaintiffs were remaining in the suit. The error has been corrected.

  2. September 02, 2015

    Chrysler Beats Most Of Power Module Defect Suit

    A New York federal judge gutted a proposed class action accusing Chrysler Group LLC of concealing a power module defect in its vehicles, ruling on Monday that about two-thirds of their multistate claims lack sufficiently detailed factual allegations.

  3. April 10, 2015

    Cobbled-Together Defect Suit Should Be Nixed: Chrysler

    Lawyers for the former Chrysler Group told a New York federal judge Friday that a sprawling putative class action accusing the automaker of concealing a power module defect in its vehicles needs to be nixed because it attempts to cure fatal pleading deficiencies by conflating "myriad" state laws.

  4. March 30, 2015

    Drivers Tell Chrysler It's Confused In Power Module Defect Suit

    Consumers suing Chrysler Group LLC over alleged defective power modules told a New York federal judge Friday that the automaker improperly confused pleading with proof when it argued the class action should be tossed because they can't prove the company was aware of the problem.

  5. March 09, 2015

    Chrysler Wants Power Module Class Action Shut Down

    Lawyers for the former Chrysler Group have asked a New York federal judge to dismiss a proposed class action alleging the carmaker knew its vehicles' power module was prone to failure within warranty periods, arguing that no proof of these claims has been presented.