In re Nissan North America, Inc. Litigation
3:19-cv-00843
| M.D. Tenn. | Mar 31, 2023Background
- Consolidated consumer actions against Nissan North America and Nissan Motor Corporation alleging a defect ("SUBA") in the Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB/FEB) System tied to the Continental ARS410 sensor that causes sudden unintended braking.
- Plaintiffs (residents of multiple states) seek damages and equitable relief on theories including breach of express and implied warranties, fraudulent omission/concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of state consumer-protection statutes; they propose 12 class representatives and state-specific subclasses for ten states.
- Plaintiffs originally sought certification of current owners/lessees; the court treated that as an inadvertent omission and considered the class to include current and former owners/lessees; class vehicles are specific Nissan models/years identified in the motion.
- The court found numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, and ascertainability satisfied (membership determinable from Nissan records), but excluded one proposed representative (Morela Jova) who did not have an AEB vehicle.
- The court granted class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) for the state subclasses and claims described, but denied certification of an injunctive (23(b)(2)) class.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class definition / membership (current and former owners/lessees) | Class should include current and former owners/lessees of specified models; omission of "former" was scrivener's error | Expansion will hurt ascertainability and adequacy | Court allows inclusion of former owners/lessees; class ascertainable via defendant records; one rep (Jova) excluded for lacking AEB vehicle |
| Rule 23(a) prerequisites (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) | Common defect, Nissan knowledge/conduct, and shared warranties satisfy 23(a) | Sensor/software variations and differing histories undermine commonality and typicality | 23(a) satisfied: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy met (except Jova); counsel adequate |
| Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive certification (notice program and warranty extension) | Injunctive relief appropriate and class-wide remedy is available | Claims seek individualized monetary relief; past purchasers lack standing; proposed relief won’t cure harms | Denied: 23(b)(2) injunctive class not appropriate and plaintiffs failed to counter defendants’ arguments |
| Rule 23(b)(3) predominance, superiority, manageability for warranties, fraud, unjust enrichment, and state stat. claims | Core issues (existence of SUBA defect, Nissan knowledge, concealment, common warranty) are amenable to classwide proof; common issues will predominate and class action is superior | Individualized issues (manifestation, repairs, reliance, damages) will predominate and make class unmanageable | Granted: 23(b)(3) certification for the state subclasses and claims at issue; common proof predominates, superiority satisfied, class administratively feasible |
Key Cases Cited
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) (Rule 23(b)(3) requires appropriate class-wide proof and limits certification where model of damages is inadequate)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (explains the indivisible nature required for a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class)
- Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013) (class certification turns on whether common questions predominate, not on how they will be resolved on the merits)
- In re Whirlpool Corp., 722 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2013) (common questions must be capable of class-wide resolution and will drive disposition of the litigation)
- Young v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 693 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2012) (describes Rule 23(a) prerequisites and ascertainability considerations)
- Lyngaas v. Ag, 992 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2021) (class definition must be sufficiently definite for administrative feasibility)