288 F.R.D. 445
C.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiffs sue Toyota on behalf of a California/Texas class for alleged ABS defect in 2010 Prius and HS 250h.
- Defect claimed: ABS engages when not needed, increasing stopping distance.
- Toyota issued a February 2010 voluntary recall with a software update to address the ABS issue.
- Plaintiffs purchased before the recall and allege they were damaged or paying for a defective vehicle.
- Toyota argues class certification fails due to predominance requiring individualized proof of injury and causation.
- Court denies motion for class certification for lack of predominance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) | Plaintiffs contend common issues predominate over individual inquiries. | Toyota argues individualized issues predominate, particularly injury causation. | Predominance not satisfied; individual issues predominate. |
| Injury and manifest defect showing | Plaintiffs seek class-wide liability based on unresolved ABS defect. | Software update cured the defect; most class members did not suffer injury. | No actual injury for most; manifest defect not shown class-wide. |
| Texas-law claims added at certification | Plaintiffs seek to include three Texas-law claims in the class. | Certification is not appropriate vehicle to add new claims. | New claims not allowed via class certification; not certified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (predominance and class certification framework)
- In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litig., 253 F.R.D. 478 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (commonality and predominance in complex actions)
- Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 258 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) (predominance and economy of class action)
- In re Canon Cameras, Inc., 237 F.R.D. 357 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (class action suitability and individualized proof)
- Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, 97 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 1996) (economic efficiency of class action)
- Birdsong v. Apple, Inc., 590 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2009) (injury requirement and ascertainability under CLRA/UCL/FAL)
- Briehl v. General Motors Corp., 172 F.3d 623 (8th Cir. 1999) (injury requirement and damages pleading)
- Feinstein v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 535 F. Supp. 595 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (importance of individualized issues in class actions)