Keegan v. American Honda Motor Co.
284 F.R.D. 504
C.D. Cal.2012Background
- Seven named plaintiffs filed a putative class action against American Honda and related entities alleging CLRA, UCL, Song-Beverly, MMWA, California Commercial Code § 2313, and related state consumer protections and warranties.
- Plaintiffs sought class certification under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3); defendants challenged the motion and state-law effects were briefed.
- Alleged class vehicles are model year 2006-2007 Honda Civics and 2006-2008 Honda Civic Hybrids with a rear-suspension defect described as excessive negative camber causing tire wear, alignment issues, rough ride, and loud noise.
- Plaintiffs claim Honda knew of the defect through pre-release testing, consumer complaints, and internal data, and concealed it or delayed relief; a 2008 technical service bulletin purportedly offered only a temporary fix and reimbursement for some tires.
- The court analyzes procedural standards for class certification, Daubert standards for experts, and California choice-of-law issues, including applicability to out-of-state class members.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether common questions predominate for the CLRA claim | All class vehicles share a single design defect and uniform misrepresentation/omission. | Variability in camber and tire wear undermines predominance. | Predominance satisfied for CLRA. |
| Whether California law can govern a multi-state consumer-protection class | California law can be applied to nonresidents under due process and choice-of-law principles. | California law should not govern nonresidents; Mazza-style conflicts apply. | California law cannot govern a three-state class; certified consumer-protection subclass structure instead. |
| Whether the UCL claim can satisfy predominance across California, New York, and Florida | Uniform conduct (omission of defect) supports common proof under Tobacco II framework. | State-law differences defeat predominance. | Predominance satisfied for the consumer-protection claim with a three-state subclass approach. |
| Whether the express warranty class can be certified | Uniform defect and uniform warranty breach across states support class treatment. | California, New York, and North Carolina warranty law diverge; predominate issues may be individualized. | No; California law applies to the California express-warranty class; multi-state express warranty classes not certified. |
| Whether the implied warranty class can be certified | Latent defect renders vehicles unmerchantable and constitutes a common proof at class level. | Predominance issues require individual causation proof due to variable wear. | Implied warranty claim certified for California residents. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC, 617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) (predominance with common defect; injury wear details go to merits)
- American Honda Motor Co. v. Superior Court, 199 Cal.App.4th 1367 (Cal. App. 2011) (California certification standards; substantial evidence of a defect to support predominance)
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (Daubert and class certification gatekeeping under Rule 23(b))
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (reliance can be inferred for UCL; materiality and generalized evidence)
- Hicks v. Kaufman and Broad Home Corp., 89 Cal.App.4th 908 (Cal. App. 2001) (substantial certainty standard for warranty claims)