Abraham v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
Facts
The 119 plaintiffs owned 1975-79 Volkswagen Rabbits and alleged that a defective valve stem seal caused excessive oil consumption, engine damage and failure, and reduced resale value. They sued Volkswagen of America under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act for breach of express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability. The district court allowed discovery into each plaintiff's individual claim, counted joint owners only once, treated express warranty claims as barred if damage occurred after the warranty's time or mileage limits, and applied state-law privity rules to implied warranty claims. After those rulings, the court concluded that only 75 named plaintiffs had viable claims and dismissed the class action, then refused joinder of the remaining plaintiffs under Rule 20(a).
Issue
May a district court decide Magnuson-Moss class-action jurisdiction by probing the merits of individual named plaintiffs' claims before class certification? In addition, do state-law privity rules govern implied warranty claims under the Act, do express warranties cover defects manifesting after stated time or mileage limits, may joint owners be counted separately toward the 100 named plaintiffs requirement, and were the remaining plaintiffs properly denied joinder under Rule 20(a)?
Rule
For an initial Magnuson-Moss class-action jurisdictional determination, Bell v. Hood controls: if the complaint sets forth 100 named plaintiffs and alleges sufficient facts showing each is a member of the proposed class, the court should use the ordinary class-action procedures rather than conduct an extensive merits inquiry. If later dismissals reduce the number of named plaintiffs with prima facie claims below 100, the class must be decertified unless enough new named plaintiffs are added. Implied warranty claims under Magnuson-Moss remain subject to state-law privity rules except where expressly modified by the Act; express warranties with clear time or mileage limits do not cover defects first manifesting after those limits expire; joint owners count only once toward the 100 named plaintiffs requirement; and Rule 20(a) joinder is proper where plaintiffs allege a single defective component causing related injuries and common questions of law and fact.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
Was the judge's procedure proper for deciding whether the federal court had jurisdiction over the class action under the Act's 100-named-plaintiff requirement?