Chrysler Pentastar Engine Lawsuit Partly Dismissed

Class action lawsuit alleges V6 Pentastar 3.6L engines are defective and fail.

Chrysler Pentastar Engine Lawsuit Partly Dismissed

Posted in News

—  A Chrysler Pentastar 3.6L engine lawsuit has been partly dismissed as owners claim the engines tick, stall and suffer complete failures.

The 192-page class action lawsuit includes the following "2014 or newer Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, or RAM-branded vehicles equipped with 3.6L Pentastar V6 engine (Class Vehicles)."

  • 2014-2016 Chrysler Town & Country
  • 2014-2020 Dodge Challenger
  • 2014-2020 Dodge Charger
  • 2014-2020 Dodge Durango
  • 2014-2020 Dodge Grand Caravan
  • 2014-2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee
  • 2014-2020 Chrysler 300
  • 2014-2020 Jeep Wrangler
  • 2014-2020 Chrysler 200
  • 2014-2020 Ram 1500
  • 2016-2020 Chrysler Pacifica

The 10 vehicle owners who filed the Pentastar engine lawsuit assert the engines make ticking noise and the vehicles can buck and surge before the engines stall and fail.

Fiat Chrysler (FCA) allegedly knew in 2013 the 3.6L Pentastar engines were defective and prone to premature failure, leaving drivers without reliable transportation.

FCA allegedly told dealerships to replace defective Pentastar engine components with parts that are just as defective as the originals. Even when the vehicles are still covered by warranties, Chrysler dealers allegedly use defective replacement parts and then tell owners the vehicles are repaired.

The 3.6L Pentastar engine class action lawsuit alleges several engine components are defective and cause ticking noise.

"The Engine suffers from components of its valve train, specifically the rocker arms, camshafts, lifters and related components, as well as in the electronic and hydraulic modules controlling the timing, phasing and function of the camshafts, intake valves, lifters and related components, which cause said components to prematurely fail." — Chrysler 3.6L Pentastar engine class action lawsuit

According to the plaintiffs, they and all Pentastar engine owners overpaid for their vehicles and "have and/or must expend significant money to have their Vehicles (inadequately) repaired[.]"

Motion to Dismiss the Pentastar 3.6L Engine Lawsuit

In a motion to dismiss the engine lawsuit, FCA argues the plaintiffs lack standing to assert claims under the laws of states where they do not reside and for vehicles they did not purchase.

Judge Gregory B. Williams disagreed with Chrysler and ruled the plaintiffs made sufficient allegations that owners nationwide purchased vehicles with the same Pentastar engines.

However, the judge made clear that things may change down the line because the plaintiffs must continue to maintain standing. This is because FCA will have another chance to raise differences within vehicles at the class action certification stage.

However, Judge Williams did dismiss all fraud claims against the automaker because the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts regarding FCA knowing about the alleged Pentastar engine problems before the vehicles were sold.

The judge also tossed express breach of warranty claims and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) claims.

Claims that will move forward include allegations of unjust enrichment and breach of implied warranty.

The Chrysler Pentastar engine class action was filed by plaintiffs Etienne Maugain, Louise Shumate, Denise Hunter, Harry Reichlen, John Kundrath, Kenneth Esteves, John Skleres, Richard Archer, Stephen Dreikosen and Leonel Cantu.

The Chrysler Pentastar engine lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware: Maugain, et al., v. FCA US LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by Berger Montague PC, Capstone Law APC, and Gordon & Partners, P.A.