Flynn v. FCA US LLC

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing plaintiffs’ action, alleging that uConnect infotainment system that was installed in defendants’ 2013-2015 Chrysler cars rendered said vehicles vulnerable to cyber attacks. Record showed that magazine article reported about successful hack via uConnect infotainment system into one of defendant’s vehicles, but no other Chrysler vehicle had been subsequently hacked, and plaintiff’s theory of case was that, although alleged defect never manifested itself after hack that was reported in magazine article, plaintiffs nevertheless suffered “overpayment” injury. Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to bring instant lawsuit, where: (1) defendant filed motion to dismiss after completion of discovery and argued, as factual matter, that plaintiffs lacked standing; and (2) plaintiffs failed to point to any evidence of legally cognizable injury to support their overpayment theory, but rather relied on allegations in complaint and legal argument. Fact that Dist. Ct. had previously denied defendant’s motion to dismiss that made facial challenge to plaintiffs’ lack of standing did not require different result, since facial challenges attack standing only on pleadings. Also, plaintiffs could not rely on expert who quantified loss of value related to information about hack to establish their standing, since plaintiffs failed to provide said evidence to Dist. Ct.