Volvo defense attorneys filed a letter to the presiding judge urging the court to dismiss subpoenas, filed by the plaintiffs, requesting additional information from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in an ongoing leaking sunroof class action lawsuit.
“Nearly six months ago, Judge Arleo denied plaintiffs’ fifth renewed motion for class certification without prejudice, and granted them 60 days to renew their motion yet again, with proof of numerosity,” a portion of the defense’s filing reads.
Numerosity is the requirement that members of a proposed class formed for a class action is so large as to make additional joining members impracticable, according to court documents.
According to Volvo, both parties agreed to a new schedule for document discovery and depositions. Now Volvo’s attorneys allege “the plaintiffs still have no evidence of numerosity and no basis to support the claim that they can obtain evidence.”
“Experians’s contracts with New Jersey and Florida permit it to provide the subpoenaed information provided that a class administrator supplies the requisite certification of permissible use. Volvo has repeatedly objected to any attempt to appoint a class administrator in this case,” a portion of the defense’s filing reads. “The subpoenas don’t offer any hope. Plaintiffs complain that Volvo has not cited any authority supporting the fact that the DMV agency procedures ‘supersede’, that argument is substantively incorrect and backwards.”
The lawsuit, which was originally filed in 2010 by Joanne Neale, where she alleged Volvo was responsible for defective sunroofs that caused water leaks in certain models. A new deposition was then added to the class action suit in 2018 by Kelly McGary, who claimed she has not experienced any issues with its sunroof even after leaving her vehicle parked outside, exposing it to various weather conditions.
When questioned about ever noticing any leaks herself, by her mechanic or by her staff members who also drive the vehicle, she answered no.
Plaintiffs want a federal judge to certify their proposed class in a new motion. They claim Volvo sold the defective sunroofs that led to interior damage to its vehicles. According to court documents, some Volvo owners noticed excess water inside of their vehicles after their limited warranty period was up.
Look to a future edition of glassBYTEs for continued coverage of the suit.