Cholakyan v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
281 F.R.D. 534
C.D. Cal.2012Background
- Cholakyan, a California resident, bought a 2005 E-320 CPO Mercedes from MBUSA in 2008 and later experienced interior water leaks.
- Two interior floods (2009-2010) coincided with electrical problems and alleged warranty exclusions for water leaks.
- Cholakyan alleges MBUSA had prior warnings (DTBs) and multiple campaigns addressing water drains; bulletins span 2002–2008 and affect many vehicles.
- He asserts a unified Water Management System defect across 2003–2009 Model 211 vehicles, causing water intrusion and safety/electrical issues.
- Cholakyan seeks class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) for California residents owning/leasing 2003–2009 Model 211s, with injunctive/declaratory relief.
- MBUSA opposed certification, arguing lack of commonality, excessive variation among vehicles, and that relief sought is not appropriate for a Rule 23(b)(2) class.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) | Cholakyan asserts a common water-management defect across class vehicles. | DTBs and vehicle variation show no single common defect across all class members. | Not met; no single common defect; class cannot be certified. |
| Typicality under Rule 23(a)(3) | Cholakyan's claims typify class claims regarding water leaks and related damages. | Cholakyan's vehicle differs (sunroof presence, year variance) and standing/claims risk undermines typicality. | Not met; Cholakyan not typical of class due to variation and standing concerns. |
| Rule 23(b)(2) viability | Injunctive/declaratory relief can be classwide and align with policy under Secret Warranty Law. | Relief would be individualized monetary claims; not indivisible relief for all class members. | Not met; relief not indivisible to all members; rule 23(b)(2) not appropriate. |
| Adequacy of representation | Cholakyan and counsel zealously pursue class claims for the benefit of all members. | Counsel's strategic shifts and potential damages concerns risk inadequate representation. | Not necessary to decide fully, but concerns exist; supports denial of certification. |
| Daubert evidence standard at class certification | Full Daubert review of Waters’ and Potok’s analyses is unnecessary at certification. | Daubert should apply; unreliability undermines classwide proof. | Daubert applied; evidence insufficient to support class certification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (Supreme Court 2011) (rigorous commonality/predominance analysis required at certification)
- Mazaa v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (commonality limited burden; single common question preferred)
- Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (Daubert standard applies to class certification evidence)
- Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992) (typicality/adequacy considerations in class actions)
- Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 467 U.S. 867 (U.S. 1984) (class judgment may not preclude later individual damages claims)
- Behrend v. Comcast Corp., 655 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2011) (Daubert-model assessment at certification stage; not final trial ruling)
- Zurn Pex Plumbing Prods. Liability Litig., 644 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 2011) (Daubert gatekeeping at class certification stage)