Defect alleged to affect tens if not hundreds of thousands of cars across the Mercedes-Benz vehicle line can cause rear subframes to rust or corrode, resulting in sudden, unexpected loss of control for the driver. In response to notice of imminent lawsuit, Mercedes announced a belated, inadequate warranty extension.

February 10, 2023, Atlanta, Georgia–(BUSINESSWIRE)–The law firms of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Corpus Law Patel LLC announce the filing of a federal automotive defect class action lawsuit in federal district court in Georgia against Mercedes-Benz USA LLC and Daimler AG alleging breach of warranty and violation of state and federal consumer fraud laws, relating to rust or corrosion of the subframe 2010-2022 models across the Mercedes-Benz vehicle line, including Classes C, E, GLK, G, CLS SLK/SLC, and SL.

As the complaint notes, plaintiffs brought the lawsuit to force Mercedes to warn consumers about a dangerous defect in the rear subframes of their vehicles, and compensate them for their damages arising from the defect. Plaintiffs allege that the vehicle subframes prematurely rust and corrode, costing consumers thousands of dollars in repairs that Mercedes has refused to cover. The rust and corrosion can adversely affect driveability, lead to corrosion of other components on the underside of the vehicles, or cause the rear subframes to fail while the vehicles are in motion. As a result, thousands of owners have paid out of pocket for repairs and related costs, while many more are still unknowingly driving unsafe vehicles.

The complaint further alleges that Mercedes has known of the defect for many years, including through consumer complaints made directly to Mercedes, complaints made to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s Office of Defect Investigation, and complaints posted on public online vehicle owner forums, as well as other internal sources unavailable to plaintiffs and their counsel without discovery. In addition, the complaint details that despite Mercedes’ refusal to acknowledge the defect or pay for the repairs it requires, Mercedes’ authorized dealers have told owners who complain that premature subframe corrosion is a common problem with Mercedes vehicles.

The complaint explains that, because corrosion occurs “from the inside out,” the defect is not apparent even to a trained mechanic until the rear subframe is dangerously corroded, near total failure, and has rendered the vehicle unsafe to operate. Replacing the rear subframe typically costs from $3,500 to more than $7,000.

Corpus Law Patel partner Ketan A. Patel, who represents the owners who are suing, emphasized: “This is a serious safety concern. Corrosion on the rear subframe makes the component and its attached suspension parts structurally unstable and prone to failure. And when the subframe fails while the vehicle is in motion, it can cause the rear of the vehicle to fishtail, the vehicle to suddenly veer to one side, or complete loss of control for the driver. It is important that all vehicle owners have the opportunity and the notice to have their vehicles inspected promptly and free of charge.”

Before filing the complaint, counsel for the owners informed Mercedes that a lawsuit was imminent and demanded relief. Two months after that letter was sent, and years after Mercedes allegedly knew of the defect, Mercedes finally today announced an extended warranty program to cover perforation and corrosion in certain of its vehicles.

Lieff Cabraser partner Jonathan D. Selbin, who also represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, responded to that development: “While we are glad Mercedes has finally acknowledged this common defect in its vehicles, we are disappointed that it waited years to do so and only took action after we informed them of our impending lawsuit. The relief it is saying it will provide is not adequate because it does not warn owners that they are at risk of significant and dangerous corrosion and need to get their vehicles professionally inspected. It also does not appear to reimburse owners for all of the expenses they incurred due the defect.”

The lawsuit seeks an order that Mercedes-Benz fully acknowledge the rear subframe defect in its vehicles, warn all owners affected by the defect, void any would-be limitations expressed in its vehicle warranties that would let it avoid responsibility for the defect, as well as injunctive relief requiring Mercedes to reassess all prior warranty claims related to the rear subframe defect, to refrain from further deceptive sales practices with respect to the affected vehicles, and to pay for inspection and all repair and related costs owners incurred as a result of the defect.

Learn more about the Mercedes Benz subframe defects lawsuit and your legal rights.

Source/Contact

Jonathan D. Selbin
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
(917) 705-5862
jselbin@lchb.com

Defect alleged to affect hundreds of thousands of cars and SUVs across the Mercedes-Benz vehicle line can cause sudden complete battery failure exposing drivers to remote stranding including perilous highway and road dangers

July 1, 2022, Atlanta, Georgia–(BUSINESSWIRE)–Lieff Cabraser and Corpus Law Patel LLC announce the filing of a federal automotive defect lawsuit in Georgia district court against Mercedes-Benz USA LLC and Daimler AG alleging breach of warranty, violation of state and federal consumer fraud laws, fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment relating to sudden total car battery failures in 2004-2022 models across the Mercedes-Benz vehicle line, including Class S, C, A, CLA, CLS, G, GLA, GLK, GLC, ML, GLE, GL, GLS, and E vehicles that Mercedes manufactured between 2004 to 2022.

“‘You get what you pay for’ may be the oldest advice in retail,” notes Lieff Cabraser partner Annika K. Martin, who represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “But these drivers didn’t – they paid for reliable, safe vehicles and instead got cars that unexpectedly strand them and put them in dangerous situations. Mercedes needs to be held accountable for not doing right by their customers here.”

The lawsuit is being brought to remedy violations of law in connection with Mercedes’ design, manufacture, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting, and servicing of these vehicles, all of which are alleged to have a serious design defect that causes the battery to rapidly drain without warning, ultimately leaving consumers with a dead battery and an inoperable vehicle. The Mercedes electrical system defect occurs unexpectedly and leaves drivers stranded in potentially unsafe circumstances, requiring them to incur sudden expenses such as roadside assistance, mobile battery jump packs, costly diagnostics, and repeated battery replacements.

As the Complaint notes, Mercedes does not seem to have a permanent, effective remedy for the Defect – Mercedes’ only “solutions” to the electrical system defect are temporary “band-aids” that force Class Members to pay for unexpected out-of-pocket expenses such as diagnostics, replacement batteries, towing services, mobile battery jump packs, trickle chargers, software updates, and rental cars. These temporary and partial attempts at a fix are ineffective and expose drivers to repeat instances of total vehicle failure that leave the Mercedes cars and SUVs wholly inoperable.

The Complaint goes on to note that, prior to plaintiffs’ purchase or lease of the affected vehicles, Mercedes knew of the electrical system defect via pre-release design and testing information; lemon law arbitration decisions; technical service bulletins; service center data; replacement part sales data; early consumer complaints made directly to Mercedes, collected by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s Office of Defect Investigation (“NHTSA ODI”); and/or posted on public online vehicle owner forums; testing done, including testing in response to consumer complaints; and aggregate data from Mercedes dealers, as well as other internal sources unavailable to plaintiffs and their counsel without discovery.

“When a self-described ‘Luxury Brand’ automaker knowingly and recurrently sells high-end vehicles with a low-end primary vehicle defect, you’ve got the basis for a first-class consumer fraud lawsuit,” notes Corpus Law Patel partner Ketan A. Patel, who also represents the plaintiffs in the putative class action lawsuit. “The subsequent gaslighting of owners and lessees coupled with expensive and ineffective band-aid solutions only exacerbates the offenses.”

As further alleged in the Complaint, at least some Mercedes service centers have admitted to some owners/lessees that the battery defect is a “known issue,” while deceptively telling others that nothing is wrong with their MB vehicles. And all the while, as the Complaint further details, Mercedes has nevertheless knowingly failed to disclose and indeed actively concealed the electrical system/battery defect from putative class members and the public prior to purchase/lease for nearly two decades.

“The Mercedes-Benz brand is a promise of luxury, quality, and performance,” notes Lieff Cabraser partner Mark P. Chalos, who also represents the plaintiffs in the case. “But to the owners repeatedly facing electrical system failures- sometimes dangerously leaving them stranded – Mercedes broke that promise. Mercedes needs to stand up and do right by these customers.”

The lawsuit seeks declarative relief mandating that Mercedes-Benz fully acknowledge the electrical system defect in its vehicles, notify all owners and lessees affected by the defect, void any would-be limitations expressed in its vehicle warranties that would let it avoid responsibility for the defect, as well as injunctive relief requiring Mercedes to reassess all prior warranty claims related to the battery drain defect, to refrain from further deceptive distribution, sales, and lease practices with respect to the affected vehicles, to pay inspection and repair/replacement costs, and disgorgement of all or part of the ill-gotten revenue it received from the sale or lease of the affected vehicles or make full restitution thereof to plaintiffs and the would-be class.

Source/Contact

Mark P. Chalos
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
(615) 313-9000
mchalos@lchb.com

Federal court certifies four separate classes in national Juul teen injury, fraud, and RICO litigation that includes Juul Labs Inc. and Altria (formerly Philip Morris Companies, Inc.) as well as various individual corporate defendants

June 29, 2022, San Francisco—(BUSINESSWIRE)—On June 29, 2022, plaintiffs in the federal Juul fraudulent advertising and injury litigation won a significant procedural victory when District Court Judge William H. Orrick issued an order formally certifying four classes of plaintiffs in the sprawling national Juul case. Certification, which permits the litigation to advance on behalf of all injured plaintiffs collectively, was opposed by all four of the defendants in the case – Juul Labs Inc., the Altria entities, the Founder entities, and other director defendants – who argued that differences among the injured plaintiffs precluded class treatment and required each one to file a separate, individual action.

“The whole purpose of the class action laws is to simplify and streamline litigation for the benefit of all parties – including the defendants in an action,” stated Lieff Cabraser partner Sarah R. London, who serves as Co-Lead Counsel for the plaintiffs in the Juul teen injury, fraud, and RICO litigation. “This is a tremendous victory for the plaintiffs, whose case collectively brings common issues of law, fact, circumstance, wrongdoing, fraud, and injury, as the Court clearly observed. We are delighted to be able to proceed with the litigation in a focused and efficient manner, and look forward to winning our case on behalf of the injured and defrauded teen plaintiffs and their families.”

The defendants in the Juul teen injury and fraud litigation sought to avoid certification on the grounds that no tobacco addiction and fraud case could ever rightly be certified because the “highly individualized nature of decision-making surrounding purchases of products that contain an addictive ingredient” precludes “any finding of common reliance, materiality, and injury, given class members’ different reasons for use and levels of addiction.” In his opinion and order, Judge Orrick dismissed this claim head-on: “[d]efendants paint with too broad a brush. They ignore the specific facts and legal theories here that distinguish the cases they rely on and the expert support provided by plaintiffs that was missing in those cases.” Order, page 18.

Defendants also sought escape from liability under an argument that not all of them participated in every stage or element of the alleged fraud and corporate scheming. Highlighting the example of Altria (formerly serial tobacco harm and addiction defendant Philip Morris Companies, Inc.), Judge Orrick held unambiguously, “Each of these arguments fails to undermine class certification with respect to Altria for the same reason. The five schemes identified by plaintiffs, interrelated and together, establish the overall pattern of racketeering activity alleged. That Altria was only directly involved in some of the racketeering activity is not significant. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, all defendants who participated in the RICO enterprise are liable for the entire injury caused by the enterprise’s illegal conduct, regardless of whether they personally participated in every aspect of the conspiracy.” Order, page 30.

Defendants further argued that plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions and evidence should be excluded from the case for a wide variety of reasons. Judge Orrick rejected each and every one of these evidentiary exclusion attempts, ruling that plaintiffs could indeed proceed to have their experts’ findings heard and try their case in court.

The Court certified four distinct classes for treatment in the litigation:

• Nationwide Class: All persons who purchased, in the United States, a JUUL product;
• Nationwide Youth Class: All persons who purchased, in the United States, a JUUL product and were under the age of eighteen at the time of purchase;
• California Class: All persons who purchased, in California, a JUUL product; and
• California Youth Class: All persons who purchased, in California, a JUUL product and were under the age of eighteen at the time of purchase.

Judge Orrick also designated specific individual representatives for each class, then appointed Sarah London, along with Girard & Sharp partner Dena Sharp, Keller Rohrback partner Dean Kawamoto, and Weitz & Luxenberg partner Ellen Relkin, as Co-Lead Class Counsel across the full litigation.

“We are extremely pleased with the result achieved here,” noted Dena Sharp, “and could not be more proud of our clients and the classes for standing up for their rights and taking on a defendant group with vast resources and a demonstrated willingness to fight against their claims at every turn. We look forward to winning our case in court and obtaining the fullest justice and recompense for the teens, families, and individuals harmed by the defendants’ improper and injurious schemes and conduct.”

Judge Orrick’s Order concluded with a direction to plaintiffs to propose a Notice and Notice plan after meeting and conferring with the defendants within 45 days of the Order, and, that as part of that process, plaintiffs should propose a formal Class Period for the classes certified.

Source/Contact

Sarah R. London
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
415 956-1000
slondon@lchb.com

Dena C. Sharp
Girard & Sharp
866 981-4800
dsharp@girardsharp.com

On June 23, 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) issued a stunning market denial order mandating that Juul Labs Inc. cease the sale and distribution of all of their currently marketed products in the United States. The extraordinary Order also directs that all Juul products currently on the U.S. market must be removed or risk immediate enforcement action. The products include the JUUL device and four types of JUUL pods: Virginia tobacco flavored pods at nicotine concentrations of 5.0% and 3.0% and menthol flavored pods at nicotine concentrations of 5.0% and 3.0%. Retailers should contact JUUL with any questions about products in their inventory.

“This action by the FDA in pulling Juul’s toxic, dangerous and deceptively marketed products out of circulation vindicates the claims we’ve brought on behalf of the victims,” notes Lieff Cabraser, “which include addicted youth, misled consumers, and counties, tribes and school districts that have been left to address the public health crisis caused by Juul products. We will continue to zealously advocate for all victims who have suffered at the hands of those who sought to profit from JUUL’s highly addictive and dangerous products at the expense of young people and public health, including Altria, as well as JUUL’s founders and directors, Adam Bowen, James Monsees, Riaz Valani, Nicholas Pritzker, and Hoyoung Huh.” Our firm co-leads the MDL.

These MDOs only pertain to the commercial distribution, importation and retail sales of these products, and do not restrict individual consumer possession or use—the FDA cannot and will not enforce against individual consumer possession or use of JUUL products or any other tobacco products.

“Today’s action is further progress on the FDA’s commitment to ensuring that all e-cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system products currently being marketed to consumers meet our public health standards,” said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, M.D. “The agency has dedicated significant resources to review products from the companies that account for most of the U.S. market. We recognize these make up a significant part of the available products and many have played a disproportionate role in the rise in youth vaping.”

After reviewing the company’s premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs), the FDA determined that the applications lacked sufficient evidence regarding the toxicological profile of the products to demonstrate that marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health. In particular, some of the company’s study findings raised concerns due to insufficient and conflicting data – including regarding genotoxicity and potentially harmful chemicals leaching from the company’s proprietary e-liquid pods – that have not been adequately addressed and precluded the FDA from completing a full toxicological risk assessment of the products named in the company’s applications.

Further, the MDOs issued today reflect FDA’s determination that there is insufficient evidence to assess the potential toxicological risks of using the JUUL products. There is also no way to know the potential harms from using other authorized or unauthorized third-party e-liquid pods with the JUUL device or using JUUL pods with a non-JUUL device. The FDA recommends against modifying or adding substances to tobacco products. JUUL users are encouraged to report any unexpected health problems or product problems to the FDA through the Safety Reporting Portal and to seek medical attention as necessary.

“The FDA is tasked with ensuring that tobacco products sold in this country meet the standard set by the law, but the responsibility to demonstrate that a product meets those standards ultimately falls on the shoulders of the company,” said Michele Mital, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. “As with all manufacturers, JUUL had the opportunity to provide evidence demonstrating that the marketing of their products meets these standards. However, the company did not provide that evidence and instead left us with significant questions. Without the data needed to determine relevant health risks, the FDA is issuing these marketing denial orders.”

Any products subject to an MDO may not be offered for sale or distributed in the United States, or the FDA may take enforcement action.

In addition to ensuring that JUUL complies with this order, as with unauthorized products generally, the FDA intends to ensure compliance by distributors and retailers. Specifically, the FDA notes that all new tobacco products on the market without the statutorily required premarket authorization are marketed unlawfully and are subject to enforcement action.

Lieff Cabraser’s Leadership Role in Juul Fraud and Injury Lawsuits Nationwide

Lieff Cabraser represents multiple plaintiffs who suffered devastating lung, stroke, and other cardiovascular injuries from their use of Juul e-cigarettes. The lawsuits allege Juul Labs, Inc. manufactures and markets unsafe and inherently defective products in marked contrast to Juul’s vast, pervasive, and deceptive marketing as well as failure to warn users about Juul dangers, negligence in the manufacture, labeling, and promotion of its highly addictive products, and improperly enticing youths to consume e-cigarettes so as to build a new market of nicotine-addicted consumers. In December 2019, Lieff Cabraser was named Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs in the nationwide multidistrict Juul e-cigarette fraud and injury litigation.