Winzler v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12297
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Winzler brought state-law claims on behalf of a proposed nationwide class alleging Toyota ECM defect in 2006 Corolla/Corolla Matrix, seeking notice and an equitable fund for repairs.
- District court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) before class certification.
- Toyota announced a nationwide recall of 2005–2008 Corollas to fix ECMs, overseen by the Safety Act and NHTSA.
- Recall process requires Toyota to notify owners, repair or replace parts at no cost, and is subject to NHTSA oversight and penalties.
- Toyota moved to dismiss as moot, arguing the recall remedies the requested relief.
- Court considers prudential mootness, finding ongoing federal remedial commitments render the case moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prudential mootness bars the suit | Winzler has cognizable danger of incomplete relief absent judicial action. | Remedial commitment via recall suffices to moot the case. | Prudential mootness applies; case dismissed as moot. |
| Whether the NHTSA recall creates cognizable danger of failure | Agency could fail, leaving plaintiff without complete relief. | Recall process is reliable and provides complete relief; danger is conjectural. | No cognizable danger; remedy deemed sufficiently reliable to moot the case. |
| Whether supplemental record/judicial notice is proper | Need verification of recall status and progress before ruling moot. | Judicial notice of NHTSA filings sufficient to establish ongoing recall. | Record supplemented; judicial notice allowed; recall filings establish mootness. |
| Whether the voluntary vs involuntary nature of recall affects mootness | Voluntary recall undermines reliability of remedy and leaves risk of noncompliance. | Voluntary and involuntary recalls still impose the same duties and enforcement tools. | No material difference; both provide same remedial outcome; mootness remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Smith, 110 F.3d 724 (10th Cir. 1997) (remedial discretion and prudential mootness considerations)
- United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953) (remedial power, need for showing relief is required)
- Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321 (1944) (court’s power to mold decrees to necessities of the case)
- Spangler, 832 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1987) (prudential mootness when relief no longer justified by merits)
- New Mexico ex rel. N.M. State Highway Dep’t v. Goldschmidt, 629 F.2d 665 (10th Cir. 1980) (comity and prudential considerations in continued litigation)
- Chamber of Commerce v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 627 F.2d 289 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (prudential mootness and government-relief considerations)
- In re Calder, 907 F.2d 953 (10th Cir. 1990) (judicial notice of public agency filings; mootness implications)
- Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2009) (cognizable danger standard in mootness analysis)
- Ayres v. General Motors Corp., 234 F.3d 514 (11th Cir. 2000) (private right of action considerations (referenced on remedial options))