In re Onstar Contract Litigation
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145846
E.D. Mich.2011Background
- Consolidated actions allege Michigan MCPA and warranty claims against OnStar and four automaker defendants (GM, Honda, Subaru, VW) with nationwide class-certification requests; GM claims stayed due to bankruptcy.
- SMAC pleads five counts, including Count I (MCPA against OnStar) and Counts II–V (consumer protection/unfair practices and warranty claims against Honda, Subaru, VW).
- Choice-of-law rulings: home-state law applies to each plaintiff; Michigan law governs OnStar MCPA claims.
- Plaintiffs seek nationwide classes for OnStar and state-law-based classes for Honda, Subaru, and VW across selected states, with commercial-use exclusions and OnStar-subscription timing requirements.
- Court finds no certification due to predominance and manageability problems stemming from multi-state law, individualized issues, and class-definition ascertainability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do OnStar MCPA claims satisfy predominance? | Common issues predominate under a reasonable-consumer standard for reliance. | Reliance, materiality, and damages are individualized; no class-wide proof feasible. | Predominance not met; individualized issues predominate. |
| Do Honda/Subaru/VW state-law claims satisfy predominance? | Common proofs can establish violations across states. | Different state laws and elements require individualized proof of causation, reliance, and damages. | Predominance not met; individualized causation/reliance/damages preclude class treatment. |
| Are the proposed Subaru Oregon and generally ascertainable classes viable? | OnStar data and named-plaintiffs support ascertainability and Oregon-subclass should be certifiable. | No class representative for Oregon; ascertainability fails; data insufficient to identify members without individualized inquiries. | Oregon Subaru class not certifiable; ascertainability lacking for other proposed classes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (rigorous Rule 23 analysis; commonality and predominance require classwide resolutions)
- In re American Medical Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir. 1996) (trial court must assess Rule 23 prerequisites with fact-specific inquiry)
- Pilgrim v. Universal Health Card, LLC, 660 F.3d 943 (6th Cir. 2011) (manageability and predominance in class actions with varying states and issues)
- Sprague v. General Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 1998) (typicality and adequacy considerations in class certification)
- Dix v. American Bankers Life Assur. Co. of Florida, 429 Mich. 410 (Mich. 1987) (class members can rely on reasonable consumer standard for MCPA reliance)
- Cohen v. DIRECTV, Inc., 178 Cal.App.4th 966 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (actual reliance required for damages under CLRA; materiality varies by consumer)
- Webb v. Carter’s Inc., 272 F.R.D. 489 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (reasonable consumer standard not available where materiality/reliance vary by consumer)
- In re Ferrero Litigation, 794 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (reliance requirements for CLRA and UCL claims; damages require actual reliance)