Keegan v. American Honda Motor Co.
838 F. Supp. 2d 929
| C.D. Cal. | 2012Background
- Putative class action alleging defects in model year 2006–2008 Honda Civics and Civics Hybrid related to rear suspension causing premature tire wear and safety risk.
- Plaintiffs allege Honda knew of the defect from pre-release data and complaints but concealed it until 2008 TSB.
- TSB allegedly provided only a temporary fix and did not fully remedy the defect or reimburse costs, and no recall was issued.
- Named plaintiffs from six states purchased or leased class vehicles; plaintiffs allege misrepresentation or omission and safety hazards.
- Defendants move to dismiss; court evaluates CLRA, UCL, Song-Beverly, Magnuson-Moss, and state consumer-protection claims; court allows some claims to proceed and dismisses others.
- Court permits amendment within 20 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLRA/UCL claim viability based on failure to disclose a safety defect | Keegan argues concealment of known safety defect is actionable | Honda contends no duty to disclose absent safety/material defect. | CLRA/UCL claims survive at this stage |
| Implied warranty under Song-Beverly for merchantability | Keegan claims breach; other plaintiffs lack privity | Privity required for some plaintiffs; limited for others | Keegan survives; some plaintiffs' Song-Beverly claims dismissed for lack of privity |
| Express warranty claim under Commercial Code § 2313 and notice requirements | Keegan alleged express warranty covering repairs; claims against manufacturer permissible | Notice to manufacturer required before suit under some authority | Keegan's express warranty claim survives; notice requirement not mandatory against manufacturer in this context |
| Magnuson-Moss jurisdiction and exhaustion requirements | CAFA jurisdiction suffices; IDR exhaustion not mandatory where voluntary | Magnuson-Moss requires exhaustion and 100 named plaintiffs for federal action | Court has jurisdiction under CAFA; exhaustion not required due to voluntary IDR; claims proceed for pled warranties |
| State consumer protection claims and Rule 9(b) applicability | Omissions/concealment can support FDUTPA/FDCPA-like claims; causation pled | Claims require specific misrepresentations or causation tied to communications | Claims pled with Rule 9(b) due to fraud basis; state claims survive |
Key Cases Cited
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (Rule 9(b) applies to CLRA/UCL fraud claims; heightened pleading required)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (Plaintiff must plead plausible facts; facts considered true at motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Plausibility pleading standard; non- conclusory factual content required)
- Cel‑Tech Comms., Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999) (Unfair competition includes unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent acts; broad scope of §17200)
- Daugherty v. Gen. Motors Corp., 144 Cal.App.4th 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (Safety or material misrepresentation/omission may create duty to disclose in CA warranty context)
- Oestreicher v. Alienware Corp., 544 F.Supp.2d 964 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (Materiality and safety concerns govern duty to disclose in CA warranty context)
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Prods., 59 Cal.2d 57 (Cal. 1963) (Privity and warranty concepts foundational in CA implied warranties)
- Fieldstone Co. v. Briggs Plumbing Prods., 54 Cal.App.4th 357 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (Fieldstone addressing notice/defects in contract-like warranty contexts)