Jim Clemmens v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.
2:24-cv-09728
| C.D. Cal. | Jul 17, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Clemmens, Hernandez, and Toussaint purchased or leased Honda/Acura vehicles with White Diamond Pearl paint and allege they experienced premature paint degradation (bubbling, peeling, delaminating).
- Plaintiffs claim Honda knew of a latent paint defect before sale and failed to disclose it, impacting value and causing unexpected repair costs.
- Honda issued Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs) for paint issues in certain vehicles and extended some paint warranties but resisted out-of-warranty repairs for plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs filed suit as a putative nationwide class action, asserting various statutory and common law claims under California, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey law.
- Honda moved to dismiss on grounds including lack of standing, statute of limitations, improper pleading of multi-state/common law claims, and insufficient particularity for fraud-based claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of Limitations (Toussaint) | Accrual delayed by discovery, fraudulent concealment, and/or estoppel. | Claims expired; delayed discovery and tolling/estoppel not adequately pleaded. | Toussaint's claims time-barred; dismissal with leave to amend |
| Multi-State/Common Law Claims | National class can recover under California law; unspecified alternate law possible. | Must identify which state’s laws apply with representative plaintiff from each. | Dismissed; must specify applicable state law and representatives |
| Pre-Sale Knowledge (Fraud-based Claims) | Honda had pre-sale knowledge from TSBs, internal tests, complaints, settlements. | TSBs and documents not about plaintiffs’ vehicles/models don’t show knowledge. | Pre-sale knowledge adequately pleaded at this stage |
| Misrepresentation/Omission (Fraud Claims) | General reliance on Honda marketing and vague representations about quality/value. | Lack of specificity in what/when/where was seen or relied on; omission not central to product. | Insufficient particularity; omission not related to core function; dismissed with leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (Article III standing requirements)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Rule 8 pleading standard)
- Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) (fraudulent omission/duty to disclose test)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements under Article III)
- Clark v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 528 F. Supp. 3d 1108 (C.D. Cal. 2021) (knowledge in auto defect cases)