By: John M. Blackwell III*
Abstract
In 1975, the United States Congress passed the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”) with the goal of alleviating the problem of sellers failing to honor their given warranties on consumer products. The MMWA provides a remedy for breach of warranty via a cause of action that consumers can bring in state or federal court. Federal court jurisdiction requires the claim to have an amount in controversy of at least$50,000. This amount must be free of “interests and costs.” In another section, the MMWA provides that victorious plaintiffs are entitled to “cost and expenses,” which include reasonable attorneys’ fees.
Litigation surrounding the MMWA has raised the question of whether attorneys’ fees are part of “interests and costs” and thus whether they count toward the amount in controversy. In 1983, the Fourth Circuit in Saval v. BL Ltd. introduced what would become the majority rule on this issue—attorneys’ fees arising from the MMWA are excluded from the amount in controversy requirement. However, in 2022, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Shoner v. Carrier Corp. created a circuit split by holding that claims under the MMWA could reach the amount in controversy using attorneys’ fees.
This Comment first examines the history of the MMWA, from the consumer product landscape that inspired it to its passage. The Comment then considers the statutory language and legislative history of the MMWA. Next, this Comment provides a summary and timeline of the circuit court cases that have ruled on the issue. Finally, this Comment analyzes the issue and suggests that plaintiffs under the MMWA should be allowed to include their attorneys’ fees in the amount in controversy requirement for federal jurisdiction. In reaching this conclusion, this Comment considers the analogous rule in diversity jurisdiction, the purpose of the MMWA, the legal reasoning of the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, and various important policy reasons.
* J.D. Candidate, The Pennsylvania State University School of Law, 2024.