Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
666 F.3d 581
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- CMBS was an optional 2005 Acura RL feature marketed to reduce rear-end collision damage through a three-stage warning/braking sequence and added about $4,000 to the car price.
- Honda's marketing included brochures and TV ads describing the CMBS functionality and its potential to warn and automatically brake in imminent collisions.
- Small-scale, intranet videos and an Owner Link site described CMBS limitations; nationwide advertising ceased in 2006, though dealership materials remained.
- Mazaa and Kalsi purchased 2007 Acura RL vehicles with CMBS in Florida and Maryland respectively; plaintiffs filed a California-based UCL/FAL/CLRA/unjust enrichment class action in 2007.
- District court certified a nationwide class under Rule 23(b)(3) applying California law, asserting California had enough ties and class-wide reliance could be presumed.
- Appellants challenge the class certification on commonality, predominance, standing, and choice-of-law grounds, and the Ninth Circuit vacates the certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California law can govern the nationwide class. | Mazaa argues California has sufficient contacts to apply its law to all class members. | Honda argues governing choice-of-law should consider multiple states’ interests and material differences. | California law cannot control the nationwide class; state-law differences preclude common adjudication. |
| Whether common questions of law or fact predominate under 23(b)(3). | Mass action is justified by common disclosures and omissions affecting all class members. | Differences in state laws and reliance must be resolved on an individual basis. | No; predominance is not satisfied because state-law variances and reliance issues undermine common questions. |
| Whether the class should be defined to include only exposed or affected members. | All class members were misled by the CMBS materials. | Not all members were exposed to CMBS advertising; exposure must be shown. | Class must include only those exposed to the misleading advertising; current breadth defeats predominance. |
| Whether there is Article III standing for all class members. | Injuries arise from overpayment due to deceptive CMBS claims; California standing suffices. | Standing requires injury that can be traced and redressed for each member. | Standing exists for California claims; but standing analysis supports further narrowing of the class to those injured. |
| Whether there is a presumption of reliance applicable to California claims. | Tobacco II permits reliance inference for broadly disseminated false advertising. | Limited, non-uniform exposure to CMBS advertising defeats presumptive reliance. | No broad presumption; reliance must be individualized or limited to exposed members. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (strengthens the commonality threshold for class certification)
- Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) (rigorous analysis prerequisite for class certification; abuse of discretion standard)
- US v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc; framework for reviewing Rule 23 determinations)
- Wash. Mut. Bank v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.4th 906 (Cal. 2001) (three-step governmental interest test for choice-of-law in class actions)
- McCann v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 48 Cal.4th 68 (Cal. 2010) (governs state interest balancing in California choice-of-law)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (presumption of reliance limited; standing and exposure considerations)
- Mass. Mut. Life Ins. v. Superior Court, 97 Cal.App.4th 1282 (Cal. App. 2002) (massive exposure allows reliance inference; limited ad campaign defeats it)
- Clothesrigger, Inc. v. GTE Corp., 191 Cal.App.3d 605 (Cal. App. 1987) (California interest in deterring deceptive conduct by in-state corporations)
- Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc., 91 Cal.App.4th 224 (Cal. App. 2001) (application of California consumer protection law to nationwide class where conduct emanates from California)
- Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1982) (state interests in protecting local markets; limits of extraterritorial application)