Loading
Automotive
11 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Automotive Engineering, Human Factors, Product Liability, Engineering
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Eastern District of Michigan
In re FCA US LLC Monostable Electronic Gearshift Litigation (MDL No. 2744) consolidated multiple civil actions involving certain FCA US LLC vehicles equipped with a monostable electronic gear selector, including the 2012–2014 Dodge Charger, 2012–2014 Chrysler 300, and 2014–2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee. The JPML centralized the proceedings in the Eastern District of Michigan on October 5, 2016. The litigation moved through consolidated pleadings, extensive motion practice, and a narrowed economic-loss claim focused on alleged overpayment at the point of sale. The Court certified a Rule 23(c)(4) common-issues class for trial on three factual questions, and trial ran from September 6 to September 20, 2022. The jury found no design defect under the laws of 18 jurisdictions submitted for decision, found a design defect under Utah law, and found no concealment on the concealment question as presented.
After trial, the Court addressed motions seeking entry of judgment and renewed attempts to proceed on new class theories, including arguments based on alleged “usability flaws.” The Court rejected efforts to recast the case under a different defect theory after the verdict, entered judgment for FCA US LLC on claims tied to jurisdictions where the jury found no design defect, declined to enter judgment against parties in certain transferred cases excluded from the common-issues trial, and treated the Utah implied-warranty theory and related Magnuson-Moss claim separately because concealment was not treated as an element of those claims under the Court’s analysis. FCA later defeated Utah class-certification and summary-judgment efforts on the remaining implied-warranty claim. In March 2025, Trevor Marble filed a Sixth Circuit appeal challenging the denial of Utah class certification, partial judgment on the implied-warranty claim, and reconsideration. On August 5, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss under FRAP 42, and the Sixth Circuit entered an order granting dismissal the same day. The appellate docket therefore does not reflect a merits ruling or classwide damages award on the remaining Utah theory. The record also shows that plaintiffs relied on studies and testing addressing driver interaction with the shifter interface, including reliable gear selection and the adequacy of tactile and visual feedback, which the Court discussed in connection with human-factors evidence.
The record identifies this date as the filing date for the earliest economic-loss suit later coordinated in the proceeding. The filings centered on allegations involving the monostable electronic shifter interface and claimed economic loss tied to vehicle purchase decisions. The Court later treated this filing as the starting point for the economic-loss track that became part of the coordinated litigation.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred and centralized related actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Centralization placed coordinated pretrial proceedings before the Eastern District of Michigan. The order formally created the MDL structure used to manage overlapping factual and legal issues.
The Court entered an initial scheduling order setting baseline deadlines, filing protocols, and master-docket procedures. The order confirmed consolidation for pretrial purposes and explained how filings would apply across all actions or only to specific cases. It also created the process for coordinated motion practice and case-management conferences.
The JPML later transferred additional related cases into MDL No. 2744 as tag-along actions. This added more cases to the coordinated proceeding and continued centralized handling of overlapping issues. The transfer order shows that related suits continued to be identified after the MDL was created.
After discovery and briefing, the Court certified a common-issues class for trial on three factual questions addressing defect, concealment, and materiality. The certification approach was aimed at resolving shared factual disputes across jurisdictions rather than trying every claim on a single classwide basis. This order set the trial structure for the later issue-focused jury proceeding.
The Court denied FCA’s summary-judgment motion, allowing the certified common-issues track to proceed toward trial. The ruling kept the coordinated merits questions active rather than ending the case through dispositive motion practice. It became part of the sequence of rulings leading into the 2022 jury trial.
As part of its pretrial evidentiary rulings, the Court addressed challenges to plaintiffs’ human-factors evidence, including opinions offered by Dr. Craig Rosenberg about how drivers interact with the monostable shifter interface. The opinions discussed Rosenberg’s methodology, which included review of FCA-commissioned market research and replication of earlier usability testing conducted by FCA’s retained firm, including a 2012 Lextant study. The Court treated this human-factors evidence as part of the broader record on interface design, gear-selection feedback, and the risk of shifting errors, without resolving the ultimate defect questions at that stage.
Before trial, the Court denied a request aimed at remanding transferred cases, but also granted relief addressing due-process and venue concerns by limiting what the issue trial would decide. The record states that certain transferred matters, including New York and California claims, were expressly excluded from adjudication in the common-issues trial. For that reason, the file set does not support describing the entire MDL as fully resolved by the trial verdict alone.
From September 6 through September 20, 2022, the Court conducted the Rule 23(c)(4) common-issues jury trial on three certified factual questions concerning alleged design defect, concealment, and materiality. The jury returned a unanimous verdict finding no design defect under the laws of 18 jurisdictions submitted for decision, finding a design defect under Utah law, and answering “no” on the concealment question as framed for the issue trial. The verdict applied only to the jurisdictions and questions included in the certified trial plan, and the Court expressly noted that certain transferred matters, including New York and California claims, were excluded from adjudication in this proceeding. As a result, the verdict resolved common factual issues but did not operate as a final merits judgment or damages determination for all claims or parties within the MDL.
On August 3, 2023, the Court granted FCA US LLC’s motion for entry of judgment in part after the common-issue jury verdict. The Court rejected plaintiffs’ effort to reframe the case around alleged “usability flaws” as an independent defect theory, concluding that the approach was inconsistent with the theories pleaded, certified, and tried to the jury. Applying the verdict to the certified issues, the Court entered judgment on claims governed by jurisdictions where the jury found no design defect, while declining to enter judgment as to certain transferred cases that had been expressly excluded from the common-issues trial. The Court also treated the Utah implied-warranty and related Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act theories separately because concealment was not treated as an element of those claims under the Court’s analysis. Those Utah theories survived this post-verdict ruling at that stage, but the order did not enter a final merits judgment or damages award on those claims.
The Court granted a motion to strike plaintiffs’ attempt to certify New York and California classes as tardy and procedurally improper. The order stated that the motion came long after the class-certification schedule set earlier in the MDL and treated the request as inconsistent with the procedural posture after trial and post-trial rulings. This ruling confirms that the New York and California track did not proceed through a newly certified class mechanism in the MDL court.
After FCA defeated Utah class-certification and summary-judgment efforts on the remaining implied-warranty claim, Trevor Marble appealed to the Sixth Circuit. The appeal was docketed as No. 25-1170 on March 6, 2025, and challenged the denial of Utah class certification, partial judgment on the implied-warranty claim, and reconsideration. On August 5, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss under FRAP 42, and the Sixth Circuit entered an order granting dismissal the same day. The appellate docket does not reflect a merits ruling or classwide damages award on the remaining Utah theory.
Court:
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Case Name:
In re FCA US LLC Monostable Electronic Gearshift Litigation
Automotive Electronics
Design Defect
Product Engineering
Product Safety
Safety Engineering
User Interface
Displays and Controls
Automobile Defect
In re FCA US LLC Monostable Electronic Gearshift Litigation (MDL No. 2744) consolidated multiple civil actions involving certain FCA US LLC vehicles equipped with a monostable electronic gear selector, including the 2012–2014 Dodge Charger, 2012–2014 Chrysler 300, and 2014–2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee. The JPML centralized the proceedings in the Eastern District of Michigan on October 5, 2016. The litigation moved through consolidated pleadings, extensive motion practice, and a narrowed economic-loss claim focused on alleged overpayment at the point of sale. The Court certified a Rule 23(c)(4) common-issues class for trial on three factual questions, and trial ran from September 6 to September 20, 2022. The jury found no design defect under the laws of 18 jurisdictions submitted for decision, found a design defect under Utah law, and found no concealment on the concealment question as presented.
After trial, the Court addressed motions seeking entry of judgment and renewed attempts to proceed on new class theories, including arguments based on alleged “usability flaws.” The Court rejected efforts to recast the case under a different defect theory after the verdict, entered judgment for FCA US LLC on claims tied to jurisdictions where the jury found no design defect, declined to enter judgment against parties in certain transferred cases excluded from the common-issues trial, and treated the Utah implied-warranty theory and related Magnuson-Moss claim separately because concealment was not treated as an element of those claims under the Court’s analysis. FCA later defeated Utah class-certification and summary-judgment efforts on the remaining implied-warranty claim. In March 2025, Trevor Marble filed a Sixth Circuit appeal challenging the denial of Utah class certification, partial judgment on the implied-warranty claim, and reconsideration. On August 5, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss under FRAP 42, and the Sixth Circuit entered an order granting dismissal the same day. The appellate docket therefore does not reflect a merits ruling or classwide damages award on the remaining Utah theory. The record also shows that plaintiffs relied on studies and testing addressing driver interaction with the shifter interface, including reliable gear selection and the adequacy of tactile and visual feedback, which the Court discussed in connection with human-factors evidence.
The record identifies this date as the filing date for the earliest economic-loss suit later coordinated in the proceeding. The filings centered on allegations involving the monostable electronic shifter interface and claimed economic loss tied to vehicle purchase decisions. The Court later treated this filing as the starting point for the economic-loss track that became part of the coordinated litigation.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred and centralized related actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Centralization placed coordinated pretrial proceedings before the Eastern District of Michigan. The order formally created the MDL structure used to manage overlapping factual and legal issues.
The Court entered an initial scheduling order setting baseline deadlines, filing protocols, and master-docket procedures. The order confirmed consolidation for pretrial purposes and explained how filings would apply across all actions or only to specific cases. It also created the process for coordinated motion practice and case-management conferences.
The JPML later transferred additional related cases into MDL No. 2744 as tag-along actions. This added more cases to the coordinated proceeding and continued centralized handling of overlapping issues. The transfer order shows that related suits continued to be identified after the MDL was created.
After discovery and briefing, the Court certified a common-issues class for trial on three factual questions addressing defect, concealment, and materiality. The certification approach was aimed at resolving shared factual disputes across jurisdictions rather than trying every claim on a single classwide basis. This order set the trial structure for the later issue-focused jury proceeding.
The Court denied FCA’s summary-judgment motion, allowing the certified common-issues track to proceed toward trial. The ruling kept the coordinated merits questions active rather than ending the case through dispositive motion practice. It became part of the sequence of rulings leading into the 2022 jury trial.
As part of its pretrial evidentiary rulings, the Court addressed challenges to plaintiffs’ human-factors evidence, including opinions offered by Dr. Craig Rosenberg about how drivers interact with the monostable shifter interface. The opinions discussed Rosenberg’s methodology, which included review of FCA-commissioned market research and replication of earlier usability testing conducted by FCA’s retained firm, including a 2012 Lextant study. The Court treated this human-factors evidence as part of the broader record on interface design, gear-selection feedback, and the risk of shifting errors, without resolving the ultimate defect questions at that stage.
Before trial, the Court denied a request aimed at remanding transferred cases, but also granted relief addressing due-process and venue concerns by limiting what the issue trial would decide. The record states that certain transferred matters, including New York and California claims, were expressly excluded from adjudication in the common-issues trial. For that reason, the file set does not support describing the entire MDL as fully resolved by the trial verdict alone.
From September 6 through September 20, 2022, the Court conducted the Rule 23(c)(4) common-issues jury trial on three certified factual questions concerning alleged design defect, concealment, and materiality. The jury returned a unanimous verdict finding no design defect under the laws of 18 jurisdictions submitted for decision, finding a design defect under Utah law, and answering “no” on the concealment question as framed for the issue trial. The verdict applied only to the jurisdictions and questions included in the certified trial plan, and the Court expressly noted that certain transferred matters, including New York and California claims, were excluded from adjudication in this proceeding. As a result, the verdict resolved common factual issues but did not operate as a final merits judgment or damages determination for all claims or parties within the MDL.
On August 3, 2023, the Court granted FCA US LLC’s motion for entry of judgment in part after the common-issue jury verdict. The Court rejected plaintiffs’ effort to reframe the case around alleged “usability flaws” as an independent defect theory, concluding that the approach was inconsistent with the theories pleaded, certified, and tried to the jury. Applying the verdict to the certified issues, the Court entered judgment on claims governed by jurisdictions where the jury found no design defect, while declining to enter judgment as to certain transferred cases that had been expressly excluded from the common-issues trial. The Court also treated the Utah implied-warranty and related Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act theories separately because concealment was not treated as an element of those claims under the Court’s analysis. Those Utah theories survived this post-verdict ruling at that stage, but the order did not enter a final merits judgment or damages award on those claims.
The Court granted a motion to strike plaintiffs’ attempt to certify New York and California classes as tardy and procedurally improper. The order stated that the motion came long after the class-certification schedule set earlier in the MDL and treated the request as inconsistent with the procedural posture after trial and post-trial rulings. This ruling confirms that the New York and California track did not proceed through a newly certified class mechanism in the MDL court.
After FCA defeated Utah class-certification and summary-judgment efforts on the remaining implied-warranty claim, Trevor Marble appealed to the Sixth Circuit. The appeal was docketed as No. 25-1170 on March 6, 2025, and challenged the denial of Utah class certification, partial judgment on the implied-warranty claim, and reconsideration. On August 5, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss under FRAP 42, and the Sixth Circuit entered an order granting dismissal the same day. The appellate docket does not reflect a merits ruling or classwide damages award on the remaining Utah theory.
1. Human Factors Engineering Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
The court records identify Dr. Craig Rosenberg as the plaintiffs’ human-factors expert and discuss his work evaluating the monostable shifter interface and how drivers received status feedback from the control. The opinions address challenges to his testimony under Rule 702 and describe his methodology as including review of FCA-commissioned study results and replication-style testing performed during the litigation. In this record, his role centered on how the shifter’s design could affect driver understanding of gear selection and the risk implications of shifting errors.
2. Automotive Engineering Expert Witness
In product-liability cases involving electronic gear-selection systems and post-sale software remedies, automotive engineering expert witnesses are often engaged to help explain vehicle system architecture, control logic, interlocks, and potential failure modes. Their role typically includes clarifying how the gearshift system operates, how software updates such as an added “auto park” function are intended to change system behavior, and how those design features interact with driver inputs.
3. Cost Analysis Expert Witness
In such cases where it involves alleged economic loss, cost analysis expert witnesses are often engaged to help evaluate and explain consumer overpayment, pricing impact, and other cost-related issues tied to the plaintiffs’ theories of loss. Such experts typically assess how claimed economic harm could be measured using available pricing data, market information, or transactional records, consistent with the legal framework adopted by the court.
1. Rule 23(c)(4) can resolve core liability questions without deciding entire cases.
The issue-class approach allowed the Court to test defined factual questions across jurisdictions while avoiding the complexity of full classwide merits trials. That structure produced answers on defect questions but left damages and certain claims for later procedural stages.
2. Trial framing limits post-trial theory changes.
The Court’s rejection of post-verdict “usability flaw” reframing shows that parties may be held to the theories they plead, certify, and present at trial. Once the trial plan defines the case, later efforts to shift theories may fail.
3. Clear boundaries for included and excluded claims affect later rulings.
The Court’s treatment of included jurisdictions and excluded claims affected later judgment rulings and remand considerations. Excluded cases did not automatically rise or fall with the common-issues verdict.
4. Class-certification deadlines carry consequences.
The striking of late New York and California class efforts shows that courts may enforce scheduling orders rather than reopen certification disputes after trial. Timing and procedural posture remained central to the Court’s post-trial analysis.
5. Human-factors evidence works best when tied to certified questions.
The MDL shows that interface-design and driver-interaction evidence is strongest when connected to the factual questions authorized for decision. Broad assertions about user behavior carry less force when they are not tied to the certified trial plan.
MDL 2744 moved from centralized product-design litigation into a Rule 23(c)(4) issue-class trial limited to certified questions about defect, concealment, and materiality. The jury found no design defect under the laws of 18 jurisdictions, found a design defect under Utah law, and answered “no” on concealment as presented for the issue trial. Post-trial, the Court applied those findings within the certified trial plan, rejected plaintiffs’ attempt to proceed under a post-verdict “usability flaws” theory, and treated the remaining Utah implied-warranty and related Magnuson-Moss theories separately because concealment was not treated as an element of those claims under the Court’s analysis. Later proceedings did not produce a classwide damages judgment or appellate merits ruling on the Utah track: FCA defeated Utah class-certification and summary-judgment efforts, and Trevor Marble’s 2025 Sixth Circuit appeal was dismissed by stipulation. The litigation shows that in a mature product MDL, pleadings, certification orders, trial questions, human-factors evidence, and post-verdict motions must remain aligned because later outcomes depend on the claims, jurisdictions, and evidence actually submitted to the jury.
Where was the monostable gearshift litigation centralized?
The JPML centralized the federal proceedings in the Eastern District of Michigan on October 5, 2016. The centralized docket became MDL No. 2744 and coordinated economic-loss actions involving FCA vehicles equipped with a monostable electronic gear selector.
Which vehicles were involved?
The consolidated economic-loss complaint focused on the 2012–2014 Dodge Charger, 2012–2014 Chrysler 300, and 2014–2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee equipped with the monostable shifter.
What did the 2022 jury verdict decide?
The jury found no design defect under the laws of 18 jurisdictions submitted for decision and found a design defect under Utah law. The jury also answered “no” on concealment as framed for the issue trial.
Why didn’t the verdict end the entire MDL?
The trial resolved only certified common factual issues under Rule 23(c)(4). It did not decide damages or enter merits judgments for all claims or parties, including matters excluded from the issue trial.
What happened to the New York and California class efforts?
The Court struck a late attempt to certify New York and California classes as untimely and procedurally improper. The ruling treated the request as inconsistent with the case posture after trial and post-trial rulings.
How did the Court handle human-factors evidence?
The Court evaluated human-factors testimony as record-based evidence tied to certified questions about interface design, gear-selection feedback, and driver understanding. It did not treat that evidence as broad commentary about driver behavior outside the certified trial plan.
1. Human Factors Engineering Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
The court records identify Dr. Craig Rosenberg as the plaintiffs’ human-factors expert and discuss his work evaluating the monostable shifter interface and how drivers received status feedback from the control. The opinions address challenges to his testimony under Rule 702 and describe his methodology as including review of FCA-commissioned study results and replication-style testing performed during the litigation. In this record, his role centered on how the shifter’s design could affect driver understanding of gear selection and the risk implications of shifting errors.
2. Automotive Engineering Expert Witness
In product-liability cases involving electronic gear-selection systems and post-sale software remedies, automotive engineering expert witnesses are often engaged to help explain vehicle system architecture, control logic, interlocks, and potential failure modes. Their role typically includes clarifying how the gearshift system operates, how software updates such as an added “auto park” function are intended to change system behavior, and how those design features interact with driver inputs.
3. Cost Analysis Expert Witness
In such cases where it involves alleged economic loss, cost analysis expert witnesses are often engaged to help evaluate and explain consumer overpayment, pricing impact, and other cost-related issues tied to the plaintiffs’ theories of loss. Such experts typically assess how claimed economic harm could be measured using available pricing data, market information, or transactional records, consistent with the legal framework adopted by the court.
1. Rule 23(c)(4) can resolve core liability questions without deciding entire cases.
The issue-class approach allowed the Court to test defined factual questions across jurisdictions while avoiding the complexity of full classwide merits trials. That structure produced answers on defect questions but left damages and certain claims for later procedural stages.
2. Trial framing limits post-trial theory changes.
The Court’s rejection of post-verdict “usability flaw” reframing shows that parties may be held to the theories they plead, certify, and present at trial. Once the trial plan defines the case, later efforts to shift theories may fail.
3. Clear boundaries for included and excluded claims affect later rulings.
The Court’s treatment of included jurisdictions and excluded claims affected later judgment rulings and remand considerations. Excluded cases did not automatically rise or fall with the common-issues verdict.
4. Class-certification deadlines carry consequences.
The striking of late New York and California class efforts shows that courts may enforce scheduling orders rather than reopen certification disputes after trial. Timing and procedural posture remained central to the Court’s post-trial analysis.
5. Human-factors evidence works best when tied to certified questions.
The MDL shows that interface-design and driver-interaction evidence is strongest when connected to the factual questions authorized for decision. Broad assertions about user behavior carry less force when they are not tied to the certified trial plan.
MDL 2744 moved from centralized product-design litigation into a Rule 23(c)(4) issue-class trial limited to certified questions about defect, concealment, and materiality. The jury found no design defect under the laws of 18 jurisdictions, found a design defect under Utah law, and answered “no” on concealment as presented for the issue trial. Post-trial, the Court applied those findings within the certified trial plan, rejected plaintiffs’ attempt to proceed under a post-verdict “usability flaws” theory, and treated the remaining Utah implied-warranty and related Magnuson-Moss theories separately because concealment was not treated as an element of those claims under the Court’s analysis. Later proceedings did not produce a classwide damages judgment or appellate merits ruling on the Utah track: FCA defeated Utah class-certification and summary-judgment efforts, and Trevor Marble’s 2025 Sixth Circuit appeal was dismissed by stipulation. The litigation shows that in a mature product MDL, pleadings, certification orders, trial questions, human-factors evidence, and post-verdict motions must remain aligned because later outcomes depend on the claims, jurisdictions, and evidence actually submitted to the jury.
Where was the monostable gearshift litigation centralized?
The JPML centralized the federal proceedings in the Eastern District of Michigan on October 5, 2016. The centralized docket became MDL No. 2744 and coordinated economic-loss actions involving FCA vehicles equipped with a monostable electronic gear selector.
Which vehicles were involved?
The consolidated economic-loss complaint focused on the 2012–2014 Dodge Charger, 2012–2014 Chrysler 300, and 2014–2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee equipped with the monostable shifter.
What did the 2022 jury verdict decide?
The jury found no design defect under the laws of 18 jurisdictions submitted for decision and found a design defect under Utah law. The jury also answered “no” on concealment as framed for the issue trial.
Why didn’t the verdict end the entire MDL?
The trial resolved only certified common factual issues under Rule 23(c)(4). It did not decide damages or enter merits judgments for all claims or parties, including matters excluded from the issue trial.
What happened to the New York and California class efforts?
The Court struck a late attempt to certify New York and California classes as untimely and procedurally improper. The ruling treated the request as inconsistent with the case posture after trial and post-trial rulings.
How did the Court handle human-factors evidence?
The Court evaluated human-factors testimony as record-based evidence tied to certified questions about interface design, gear-selection feedback, and driver understanding. It did not treat that evidence as broad commentary about driver behavior outside the certified trial plan.
Automotive Electronics
Design Defect
Product Engineering
Product Safety
Safety Engineering
User Interface
Displays and Controls
Automobile Defect
Automotive, +4
Automotive
Automotive, +4
Automotive