In Re: Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft Litigation, 8:22-ml-03052

This multidistrict litigation involves over 400 insurance companies (Subrogation Plaintiffs) asserting subrogation claims against Hyundai Motor America and Kia America, alleging vehicle defects led to widespread car thefts and resulting payouts.
Multiple cases across jurisdictions were consolidated into the Central District of California, with some cases including dozens of individual insurer-plaintiffs and thousands of underlying insured claims.
Defendants moved to sever all but the first-named Plaintiff in each action, arguing improper joinder and requesting that claims be refiled separately.
The Court previously struck class allegations due to predominance of individualized issues.
The Court considered both parties’ supplemental briefs and arguments regarding (a) potential for bellwether trials, (b) judicial economy, and (c) effects of severance or stay on statute of limitations.
The Court ultimately chose to sever claims but, to avoid prejudice (especially statute of limitations concerns), stayed all but the first-named Plaintiff and the first-named Plaintiff’s first claim in each individual action for now.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Permissive Joinder Under Rule 20	Joinder proper: claims arise from a common factual defect ("Thief Friendly Design").	Joinder improper: claims require individualized proof of causation and defenses.	Court held claims do not arise from same transaction or occurrence; joinder improper.
Application of Rule 18 to Joinder	Rule 18 allows joining all claims by a plaintiff, so all claims should stay.	Rule 18 is irrelevant to multi-plaintiff joinder; Rule 21 allows severance.	Rule 18 does not prevent severance of parties under Rule 21.
Judicial Economy and Trial Management	Consolidated action more efficient; pre-trial severance unnecessary.	Mass action unmanageable; applying multiple states’ laws increases burden.	Severance promotes efficiency and prevents unmanageable trial backlog.
Prejudice and Fairness	Severance/dismissal risks statute of limitations issues for plaintiffs.	Joinder prejudices defendants; risk of liability spillover and jury confusion.	Stay (not dismissal) protects both parties; prevents prejudice and inefficiency.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20; Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (joinder and severance standards)
Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000) (court’s discretion to sever for judicial economy)
Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348 (9th Cir. 1997) (permissive joinder only for claims arising from same transaction or occurrence)
Visendi v. Bank of Am., N.A., 733 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2013) (joinder can be denied for lack of fundamental fairness; misjoined plaintiffs may be severed)
Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1979) (criteria for granting a litigation stay)
Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (court’s inherent authority to stay proceedings)