In Re: Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft Litigation
8:22-ml-03052
| C.D. Cal. | Jun 12, 2025Background
- Ohio local government plaintiffs (Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Lorain, Parma) sued Hyundai Motor America and Kia America, alleging their vehicles lacked anti-theft technology, causing public safety harms amid an auto theft “crime wave.”
- The cases were consolidated as multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Central District of California.
- Plaintiffs advanced common law negligence and public nuisance claims relating to product design (vehicles without engine immobilizers).
- The Court previously held off ruling on abrogation of public nuisance claims pending a key Ohio Supreme Court decision regarding the Ohio Products Liability Act (OPLA).
- Following the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., public nuisance claims were dismissed, and the focus turned to whether OPLA also abrogates the plaintiffs’ negligence claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court's jurisdiction during pending appeal | The Ninth Circuit appeal on negligence deprives court of jurisdiction over this motion. | Appeal relates only to public nuisance/tort duty, not OPLA/nor all plaintiffs. | Court has jurisdiction and exercises discretion to decide motion. |
| Whether OPLA abrogates negligence claims seeking only economic damages (1st definition) | Claims seek economic damages so do not fall under first OPLA product liability definition. | First definition applies broadly; LaPuma v. Collinwood Concrete no longer applies. | Negligence claims seeking economic damages do not fall under first OPLA definition. |
| Whether negligence claims fall under OPLA’s second product liability definition (public right) | Claims are based on specific harm to government entities, not the general public; public safety points only to punitive damages. | Negligence claims allege interference with a right common to public and thus are abrogated by OPLA. | Negligence claims allege public right interference and are abrogated under OPLA’s second definition. |
| Leave to amend complaint | Leave should be granted to re-plead claims to avoid OPLA. | Leave should not be granted; any new product-based claim is still barred by OPLA/time-barred. | Leave to amend is granted; Plaintiffs can try to plead claims only for harm specific to the entities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets standard for plausibility in pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (explains plausibility required to state a claim)
- Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard for Rule 12(c) motions)
- Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2009) (moves for judgment on the pleadings standard)
- LaPuma v. Collinwood Concrete, 75 Ohio St. 3d 64 (Ohio 1996) (OPLA does not abrogate claims for purely economic loss)