Miles v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
1:17-cv-04423
N.D. Ill.Oct 19, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (owners of 2015–2017 Honda CR-Vs) allege an intermittent, overpowering gasoline odor inside the passenger cabin that made vehicles undrivable and posed health concerns.
- Plaintiffs contend Honda knew of the problem as of at least July 2015, could not fix it, but concealed the defect while continuing nationwide advertising and warranty assurances.
- Plaintiffs filed a second amended putative class complaint asserting 16 counts (MMWA, state consumer-protection statutes, breach of contract/warranty, unjust enrichment) on behalf of nationwide and state-based classes.
- Defendant moved to dismiss ten counts under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and to strike class definitions; plaintiffs amended claims and sought to apply California law to a nationwide class for some claims.
- The court evaluated pleading sufficiency (Twombly/Iqbal), Rule 9(b) particularity for fraud-based claims, Illinois choice-of-law principles, statute-of-limitations and notice requirements for certain state claims, and the manageability of proposed class definitions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of California law/MMWA for a nationwide class | Apply California commercial/Unfair Competition law to all plaintiffs via MMWA nationwide class | California law cannot govern non-California plaintiffs; choice-of-law requires state of purchase law | Dismissed Counts I & II: non-California plaintiffs cannot assert California law; apply law of state where vehicle was purchased |
| Rule 9(b) sufficiency for state consumer-fraud claims (IL, IN, WI, MD) | Alleged who, what, when, where, how; knowledge since July 2015; reliance on advertising | Pleading lacks particularity (names, specific misrepresentations, roles) | Denied as to 9(b): complaint supplies a general outline sufficient to satisfy Rule 9(b) |
| Timeliness and notice under Indiana Consumer Sales Act (ICSA) | Plaintiffs did not contest timely filing/notice | Shapiro’s claim time-barred by 2-year occurrence SOL; Mansfield failed to allege required written notice and opportunity to cure | Shapiro’s ICSA claim dismissed with prejudice (statute-bar); Mansfield’s ICSA claim dismissed without prejudice for failure to allege written notice |
| Unjust enrichment claims where express contract/warranty exists | Unjust enrichment pleaded as alternative and also tied to nondisclosure/consumer fraud | Unjust enrichment barred when express contract governs transaction | Denied: unjust enrichment cannot be used to duplicate contract/warranty claims but survives to the extent it is based on distinct nondisclosure/consumer-fraud allegations |
| Class definitions (nationwide and state-class scope) | Nationwide class and state classes including residents or purchasers in state are appropriate; premature to strike | Nationwide class unmanageable given choice-of-law; state classes overbroad if they include residents who did not purchase in the state | Nationwide class stricken; state classes limited to persons who purchased their CR-V in that state |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510 (7th Cir.) (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must permit reasonable inference of liability)
- Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732 (7th Cir.) (Rule 9(b) particularity applied to consumer-fraud claims)
- In re Rust-Oleum Restore Marketing, 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill.) (guidance on Rule 9(b) and class pleading sufficiency)
- Barbara’s Sales, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 227 Ill.2d 45 (Ill.) (Illinois Supreme Court on class law‑choice issues and limits on applying another state’s law to a nationwide class)