Oscar v. BMW of North America, LLC
274 F.R.D. 498
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Oscar sued BMW and Goodyear alleging Goodyear Run-Flat tires on 2005-2009 MINIs were defective; he seeks class certification for nationwide and New York subclasses under NY law and the MMWA; the court previously dismissed Goodyear on privity issues but left BMW privity via agency; class period 2005-2009; Goodyear RFTs allegedly expensive, unrepairable, no spare tire, and prone to punctures; discovery showed limited data on market share and Goodyear RFT proportion; court treated numerosity and predominance as thresholds, and found numerosity adequate nationwide but not for New York subclass; claims include breach of express/implied warranty, NY GBL 349 & 350, and MMWA claims; court denied class certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Numerosity under Rule 23(a) and MMWA limits | Oscar shows nationwide class numerosity; NY subclass numerosity uncertain | BMW control of data; insufficient precise numbers; NY subclass not numerosity | Nationwide numerosity satisfied; New York subclass not satisfied |
| Commonality of Goodyear RFT defect | Tires share common defect causing punctures and high replacement costs | Evidence insufficient to establish a common defect across all Goodyear RFTs | Commonality satisfied for facial claims, but predominance not proven for all theories |
| Typicality of Oscar and adequacy of representation | Oscar’s claims arise from same course of events; he is adequate representative | Oscar atypical due to knowledge/defense concerns and potential unique defenses | Typicality and adequacy satisfied; court proceeded to predominance analysis but remained cautious about misalignment of defenses |
| Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) for nationwide class and NY subclass | Common questions about defect and misrepresentation predominate over individualized causation | Individual causation and state-law variations predominate; MMWA state-law differences blocking | Predominance not satisfied for either nationwide class or New York subclass; certification denied |
| Remainder claims under NY GBL §349, §350 and implied warranty | Injury from deception and repair costs can be shown class-wide | Injury and causation require individualized showing; deceptive injury not uniform | Not appropriate for class treatment; claims denied for certification |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litig., 230 F.R.D. 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (factors for predominance and class certification analysis in complex actions)
- In re Ford Motor Co. Ignition Switch Litig., 194 F.R.D. 484 (D.N.J. 2000) (state-law variations prevent nationwide class on implied warranty issues)
- Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 2010 WL 4853308 (D.N.J. 2010) (discussed numerosity under similar tire defect context (WL cite))
- Amaranth Natural Gas Commodities Litig., 269 F.R.D. 366 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (back-of-the-envelope numerosity in large classes acceptable when data in defendants’ control)
- Argento v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 66 A.D.3d 930 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) (illustrates numerosity considerations in large class actions)
- Spagnola v. Chubb Corp., 264 F.R.D. 76 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (typicality and commonality considerations in complex class actions)
- Weinstein v. Snapple Beverage Corp., 2010 WL 3119452 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (discussed class-wide injury proof in §349/§350 context)