Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Diamond
140 So. 3d 1090
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Distributor is Porsche A.G.’s US importer/distributor; it does not sell directly to consumers.
- Headlights are an upscale HID feature, attractive to thieves, allegedly easy to steal due to mounting design.
- Theft waves in Coral Gables (2002–2006) were higher for Porsche than other cars, though overall regional decline followed police action.
- Class representatives bought/replaced stolen Headlights; some knew of theft risk, others did not
- Plaintiffs allege FDUTPA unfair trade practices and unjust enrichment; seek consequential damages for repairs/replacements
- Trial court certified a Florida FDUTPA class and two unjust enrichment subclasses; Distributor appeals
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predominance under FDUTPA | Common proof will show class-wide injury from unfair practice | Individual knowledge/avoidability vary, destroying predominance | Predominance not shown with updated unfairness standard |
| Adoption of the 1980 FTC unfairness standard | Florida adopted the 1980 standard via FDUTPA | Florida follows older definitions in some contexts | Florida adopts the 1980 standard for unfairness under FDUTPA |
| Impact of class member knowledge on unfairness | Knowledge does not affect improper conduct analysis | Knowledge affects reasonableness of avoidance and injury | Individual knowledge is relevant; cannot certify class for common injury |
| Predominance of unjust enrichment claim | Common questions show enrichment occurred across class retailers | Unjust enrichment depends on individualized circumstances | Unjust enrichment fails predominance; not suitable for class certification |
Key Cases Cited
- Sosa v. Safeway Premium Fin. Co., 73 So.3d 91 (Fla.2011) (predominance focus on class-wide proof for certified classes)
- In re Orkin Exterminating Co., 108 F.T.C. 263 (F.T.C. 1986) (unfairness requires reasonable avoidability by consumers; consumer information central)
- Int'l Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. 949 (F.T.C. 1984) (three-pronged unfairness framework adopted by Florida FDUTPA interpretation)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (class actions require common answers; dissimilarities impede common proof)