{"id":479,"date":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=479"},"modified":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","slug":"harber-fca-us-cd-cal-ram-1500-lemon-law-statute-limitations-fraudulent-concealment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=479","title":{"rendered":"Harber v. FCA US \u2014 C.D. Cal. Tosses RAM 1500 Lemon-Law Suit on Statute of Limitations and Vague Concealment Claim"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Jean Harber v. FCA US, LLC<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-15<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
5:24-cv-02540-SSS-DTBx<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Song-Beverly, statute of limitations, delayed discovery, fraudulent concealment, EGR cooler defect, Rule 9(b), removal, civil penalties<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Jean Harber bought a 2016 RAM 1500 truck in December 2015 and alleged that the vehicle\u2019s exhaust gas recirculation (or EGR) cooler \u2014 a part that helps reduce emissions \u2014 was defective and could crack, leak coolant, and cause fires or sudden loss of power. She sued FCA US, LLC (the truck\u2019s manufacturer) in Riverside County Superior Court in August 2024, asserting four claims under California\u2019s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the state lemon law), a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and a claim for fraudulent inducement by concealment.<\/p>\n

FCA removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction and moved for judgment on the pleadings. Harber moved to remand, arguing the amount in controversy did not meet the $75,000 federal threshold.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court denied remand and granted judgment on the pleadings, dismissing every claim with leave to amend.<\/p>\n

On remand, the court held that even though FCA estimated only $47,040 in actual damages, the maximum civil penalty available under Song-Beverly \u2014 up to two times actual damages for a willful violation \u2014 pushed the figure to roughly $94,080. Because Harber explicitly demanded that maximum penalty in her complaint, the court included it in the amount-in-controversy calculation, exceeding the $75,000 threshold.<\/p>\n

On the statute of limitations, the court applied UCC \u00a7 2725, which gives buyers four years from the date of delivery to bring a warranty claim. Harber bought the truck in December 2015 and sued in August 2024 \u2014 well outside the four-year window. The court rejected her tolling arguments because she did not plead the time and manner she discovered the defect or explain why she could not have found out earlier through reasonable diligence. Without those facts, neither the delayed-discovery rule nor fraudulent concealment could save the warranty claims.<\/p>\n

On fraudulent concealment, the court applied Federal Rule 9(b)\u2019s heightened particularity standard \u2014 requiring the \u201cwho, what, when, where, and how\u201d of the alleged fraud \u2014 and rejected what it called Plaintiff\u2019s counsel\u2019s \u201cverbatim\u201d template complaint. The court noted it had already dismissed virtually identical complaints by the same counsel against FCA in two earlier cases. The complaint described possible consequences of an EGR-cooler failure but did not say which actually happened to Harber\u2019s vehicle. It generically referred to FCA \u201csales representatives\u201d and unspecified marketing materials but did not say who Harber spoke with, what she relied on, or when. And the knowledge allegations \u2014 that FCA must have known about the defect through pre-production testing, consumer complaints, and warranty data \u2014 were a \u201cshotgun approach\u201d pleaded only on \u201cinformation and belief\u201d without any specific facts supporting that belief.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n