PITTSBURGH – A federal judge has stayed the remanding of a class action lawsuit brought by two customers against Target for alleged violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act to state court, until pending cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit which could affect the instant case’s result are resolved.
Kayleigh Serafin of Allegheny County and Cara Rowland of Crawford County (individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated) first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 2 versus Target Corporation, of Minneapolis, Minn.
“Over time, plaintiffs have each purchased at least one product costing more than $15 from defendant that included a manufacturer’s warranty, including a Shark Rocket UltraLight Corded Stick Vacuum – HV301. On or about July 9, 2022, Kayleigh Serafin purchased the product via defendant’s website. Also on July 9, 2022, Cara Rowland purchased the product from defendant’s brick-and-mortar store located in Monroeville, Pennsylvania,” the suit said.
“Defendant did not display the product’s warranty in close enough proximity to the product for plaintiffs to receive notice of the warranty; nor did defendant place signs that reasonably elicited plaintiffs’ attention, in prominent locations in the store and on its internet platforms, advising plaintiffs of the availability of the warranty upon request. Accordingly, plaintiffs were unable to access any warranty associated with the product until after the point of sale. Plaintiffs anticipate buying new products costing more than $15 that are subject to manufacturer warranties in the future, and would consider purchasing said products from. Defendant, but do not wish to have their rights under Magnuson-Moss thwarted by defendant’s failure to comply with the Pre-Sale Availability Rule.”
The suit added that “consistent with 16 C.F.R. Section 702.3, as a seller of consumer products with written warranties, for all products costing more than $15, defendant must display product warranties in close proximity to the relevant product, or place signs reasonably calculated to elicit consumers’ attention, in prominent locations in the store or department, advising consumers of the availability of warranties upon request. 16 C.F.R. Section 702.3(a)…defendant does neither of these things.”
The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 31, and the plaintiffs filed to remand the case to state court on Nov. 30.
In a March 9 memorandum opinion, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge William S. Stickman IV granted the plaintiffs’ remand motion, for lack of jurisdiction.
“The Court agrees with the analysis expressed [previously] that the Class Action Fairness Act does not supersede the jurisdictional language of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. While the provisions of CAFA have broad general application, they do not apply to the narrow class of putative class actions arising under the MMWA. The plain language of Section 2310 of the MMWA evidences a specific intent by Congress to limit class actions asserting violations of the Act where any of the three prongs of Subsection (d)(3) are implicated,” Stickman stated.
“Where one of those factors is present, Congress unequivocally provided that the claim proceed in a ‘court of competent jurisdiction in any State or the District of Columbia.’ The Court will not read the general provisions of CAFA in a manner that nullifies the specific terms of the MMWA. For the reasons set forth above, the Court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ action. This case is not eligible for removal. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand will be granted, and this case will be remanded to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. Orders of Court will follow.”
UPDATE
However, Target Corporation filed a motion for relief of judgment and a stay of the remand on March 13.
“The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has issued rulings with respect to four matters similar to the instant case in that each of these matters resulted in remand based upon a holding that the Class Action Fairness Act does not provide subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Specifically, the four matters are: A) Zortea v. Costco Wholesale Corp., B) Zortea v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., C) Rowland v. Helen of Troy, Ltd. and D) Rowland v. Bissell Homecare, Inc.,” the relief motion explained.
“All defendants in the appeal cases filed petitions with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1453(c) seeking leave to appeal the issue of whether the District Court can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over an MMWA claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 2310 (d)(1)(A) and CAFA or Section 1332(a) where the MMWA’s federal jurisdictional requirements of Section 2310 (d)(1)(B) are not met. The Third Circuit Court has consolidated the appeal cases and those matters are still pending.”
Target’s counsel added that while the Court issued the remand order, jurisdiction has not been fully divested and will not be divested until the clerk issues the notice of remand letter to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas remanding the case – which they said has not yet happened.
“The parties have conferred and in the interest of preserving the resources of both counsel and the court system, the parties seek a stay of issuing the notice of remand letter to the state court pursuant to the terms of the attached proposed order,” the relief motion continued.
“As part of this agreement and only if this motion is granted by the Court by way of the attached order: A) Defendant Target will not make any formal or amicus filings with respect to the pending appeal cases in the Third Circuit; B) Defendant Target shall not file any petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1453(c) seeking leave to appeal the March 9, 2023 remand order; C) Subject to subsection (d) below, the parties in this matter agree to adhere to and follow the ruling of the Third Circuit in the appeal cases with respect to the question of whether CAFA provides an alternate avenue to federal jurisdiction for MMWA litigants (in this instant case in this Circuit only); D) In the event a party in the appeal cases, following a decision of the Third Circuit, decides to request certification of the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, the parties in this matter will continue to honor the terms of the stay pending a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Target’s counsel argued that given the parties’ agreement, the promptness of the filing and that the request sought to preserve the judicial resources of this Court as well as the Third Circuit Court, the parties requested that the Court enter the proposed order to stay the prior remanding.
The following day, March 14, Stickman granted the motion for relief and to stay the remanding for the reasons identified.
“It is further ordered that within three days of the issuance of the Third Circuit and/or the Supreme Court’s ruling with respect to the aforementioned interlocutory appeals, counsel for the parties is directed to inform this Court of said ruling by issuance of a joint letter to be filed with the Court which shall attach the ruling. Upon application, this Court may then modify the stay as necessary,” Stickman added.
For counts of violating the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the plaintiff is seeking judgment against defendant for all injunctive, declaratory and other equitable relief sought, all costs, including experts’ fees, attorneys’ fees and the costs of prosecuting this action and such other legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
The plaintiffs are represented by Edwin J. Kilepla, Elizabeth Pollock-Avery and Kenneth A. Held of Lynch Carpenter, plus Kevin Tucker, Kevin J. Abramowicz, Chandler Steiger and Stephanie Moore of East End Trial Group, all in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Ricky M. Guerra, Kevin M. Eddy and Ana Tagvoryan of Blank Rome, in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Los Angeles.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-01538
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-014026
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com