Heather Floyd v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
966 F.3d 1027
| 9th Cir. | 2020Background
- Plaintiffs are owners/lessors of 2016–2018 Honda Civics who allege a defective continuously variable transmission/electric parking‑brake interface caused intermittent "rollaway" incidents and accidents.
- Plaintiffs filed a putative nationwide class action asserting an MMWA claim and multiple state‑law express and implied warranty and consumer protection claims, but named only three plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs expressly pleaded CAFA diversity jurisdiction, alleging classes exceed 100 members and the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.
- The district court dismissed the MMWA claim because the complaint did not name at least 100 plaintiffs, and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state‑law claims (relying on supplemental jurisdiction).
- Plaintiffs appealed; the Ninth Circuit held the premature notice of appeal was cured by the later final order under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2).
- On the merits the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the MMWA claim (holding CAFA does not displace MMWA’s 100‑named‑plaintiffs requirement) but vacated the dismissal of state‑law claims and remanded for the district court to determine whether CAFA independently supports original jurisdiction over those claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAFA displaces the MMWA requirement that a class‑action MMWA suit name at least 100 plaintiffs | CAFA provides an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over class actions and thus permits MMWA class claims even when fewer than 100 plaintiffs are named | MMWA’s clear statutory text requires at least 100 named plaintiffs for an MMWA class action in federal court and CAFA does not repeal that requirement | CAFA does not override or impliedly repeal the MMWA numerosity requirement; MMWA claim dismissed for failure to name 100 plaintiffs |
| Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction despite Plaintiffs filing a notice of appeal before a formal final judgment was entered | Plaintiffs argued the district court intended dismissal to be final and, in any event, a later final order cured any prematurity under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2) | Honda argued the district court’s later final order showed the earlier dismissal was not intended as final and Plaintiffs’ appeal was premature | Ninth Circuit exercised jurisdiction, holding any prematurity was cured by the final order pursuant to Rule 4(a)(2) |
| Whether CAFA can be used to confer jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state‑law claims after dismissal of the federal MMWA claim | Plaintiffs had alleged CAFA jurisdiction for the entire action and argued the district court should have considered CAFA independently | Honda maintained dismissal of the federal claim removed basis to keep state claims in federal court | Court vacated dismissal of state claims and remanded, holding the district court must independently consider whether CAFA gives original jurisdiction over the state claims |
| Whether CAFA impliedly repeals or conflicts irreconcilably with MMWA | CAFA’s later enactment and broader numerosity definition should control, allowing federal adjudication | Repeal by implication disfavored; statutes must be harmonized where possible | Court found no clear congressional intent to repeal MMWA; harmonization required, so MMWA’s specific limits remain effective |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008) (consideration of whether district court intended dismissal to be final for appealability)
- Knevelbaard Dairies v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 232 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2000) (inference of finality when dismissal disposes of action)
- FirsTier Mortg. Co. v. Investors Mortg. Ins. Co., 498 U.S. 269 (1991) (purpose of Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2) to protect premature notices)
- Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984) (presumption against implied repeal; harmonize statutes where possible)
- Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) (courts must give effect to both statutes and avoid picking between enactments)
- Birdsong v. Apple, Inc., 590 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2009) (previous Ninth Circuit MMWA case that noted CAFA jurisdiction without addressing MMWA numerosity)