PITTSBURGH – Two customers who had lodged a class action lawsuit against Target for alleged violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act recently abandoned their case.
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.
“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 says.
“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 adds 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, 2022 and the plaintiffs filed to remand the case to state court on Nov. 30, 2022.
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.”
Subsequent to Stickman’s order, relief from it was petitioned for by Target on March 13 and then granted the following day on March 14, thus staying the remand of the case to state court.
UPDATE
Five months the later, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint on Aug. 16.
“Plaintiffs Kayleigh Serafin and Cara Rowland, by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) hereby notify the Court that they voluntarily dismiss their claims against defendant Target Corporation with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees,” the accompanying notice stated.
The plaintiffs were represented by Edwin J. Kilpela, 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 was 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-22-012004
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com