285 F.R.D. 573
E.D. Cal.2012Background
- Plaintiffs move to certify a class under Rule 23 seeking relief for purchasers of Harley-Davidson air-cooled V-Twin motorcycles in California.
- Defendants oppose certification, arguing 130+ model configurations defeat common proof of a design defect.
- Class proposed to include 14 Dyna, 27 Softail, and 23 Touring models (130+ configurations) sold 2005–2011; Weyuker is the named plaintiff.
- Plaintiffs allege excessive heat from air-cooled engines creates burn risks and accelerates wear; EITMS allegedly fails to cure heat.
- Plaintiffs rely on common theories (design defect, materiality, knowledge, economic harm) to support class treatment; Defendants contest with individualized variables.
- The court finds most common issues do not predominate and denies class certification, with summary judgment proceedings remaining pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Numerosity satisfied? | Weyuker shows 44,000+ potential class members. | 130+ configurations make ascertainment impracticable?; not explicitly stated here. | Numerosity satisfied. |
| Do common questions predominate on design defect? | Common testing of rider skin temperature proves defect across class. | 130+ configurations lack uniform design; individualized proof required. | No common design-defect proof; predominance not satisfied. |
| Materiality under CLRA for common proof? | Materiality can be common for safety-related vehicle defects. | Materiality may vary by consumer; common proof insufficient. | Materiality not subject to common proof; individualized issues predominate. |
| Knowledge as a common question? | Defendants had exclusive/superior knowledge; common evidence may show knowledge across class. | Proof applies to some configurations; not necessarily all. | Knowledge may be amenable to generalized proof; not fatal to commonality. |
| Can damages/overpayment be proven on a class-wide basis? | Damages measured by retrofitting cost to cure defect across class. | Mileage and usage vary; not all overpaid; no generalized damages methodology. | Economic harm not amenable to common proof; damages not established on class-wide basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Falk v. General Motors Corp., 496 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (exclusive knowledge supports duty to disclose; common questions limited)
- Decker v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 2011 WL 5101705 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (superior knowledge through internal data supports disclosure considerations)
- In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 288 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 2002) (admonishes mass-action handling where design issues vary across products)
- In re Ford Motor Co. Ignition Switch Prods. Liab. Litig., 174 F.R.D. 332 (D.N.J. 1997) (class action not superior where administrative recall may be better)