Browning v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Background

This proposed class action concerns 2018 and 2019 Honda Odyssey vehicles equipped with a nine-speed automatic transmission. The eight named plaintiffs alleged two defects: a damaged transmission-end-cover sealing gasket that could allow fluid to leak, and improperly calibrated software involving the Transmission Control Module and Powertrain Control Module. They alleged symptoms including rough or delayed shifting, loud noises, harsh gear engagement, sudden acceleration or deceleration, and sudden loss of power.

The plaintiffs asserted implied-warranty, express-warranty, and state consumer-protection claims under the laws of Florida, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, and California. They also sought to represent a nationwide class and state subclasses. Honda moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under the federal rule governing failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the plaintiffs adequately identified the two alleged defects, the affected parts or systems, and the symptoms allegedly caused by those defects. The court therefore denied Honda’s motion to dismiss based on inadequate pleading of the software-calibration defect. The court found, however, that no plaintiff alleged experiencing the sealing-gasket defect. Because that meant the plaintiffs lacked the required constitutional injury to assert claims based on that defect, the court granted Honda’s motion on that issue with leave to amend. Any amendment was limited to alleging that one or more plaintiffs’ vehicles experienced the sealing-gasket defect; if they could not make that allegation, they had to remove the theory.

The court denied Honda’s argument that the alleged vehicle problems were insufficient to support breach-of-implied-warranty claims generally. At the pleading stage, the alleged transmission problems could support an inference that the vehicles were not safe and reliable transportation. The court nevertheless granted Honda’s motion without leave to amend as to Browning’s Florida implied-warranty claim because the court had previously ruled that she lacked the required legal relationship with Honda. It also granted the motion without leave to amend as to the Pappases’ Ohio implied-warranty claim because Ohio law required that relationship and the complaint did not adequately allege one. The court granted the motion without leave to amend as to Yong’s Texas implied-warranty claim because he did not adequately allege the required notice before suit. The motion was denied as to the South Carolina implied-warranty claim and the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act claim.

For the express-warranty claims, the court granted Honda’s motion without leave to amend as to the South Carolina claim. It denied the motion as to the California claim and as to Yong’s Texas claim on Honda’s arguments concerning the alleged software defect and repair refusal, while separately granting the motion without leave to amend as to Yong’s Texas claim for inadequate pre-suit notice. The court also granted Honda’s motion without leave to amend as to Boatwright’s express-warranty claim because he alleged only one presentation of the vehicle for repair. The court denied the motion as to Yong’s and Pina’s express-warranty claims because their allegations that dealerships observed or failed to record the reported problems plausibly supported a refusal to repair.

The court granted Honda’s motion without leave to amend as to the Ohio consumer-protection claim because the claim was filed more than two years after the vehicle purchase and Ohio’s limitations period was absolute. The court granted the motion with leave to amend as to the Florida, Texas, and California consumer-protection claims. The plaintiffs sufficiently identified the alleged information Honda should have disclosed and the channels through which they could have received it, but they did not adequately plead Honda’s pre-sale knowledge of the software-calibration defect or active concealment. The court found that the allegations concerning a sealing-gasket technical service bulletin could plausibly support pre-sale knowledge if a plaintiff could first establish standing for that defect.

The court granted Honda’s motion without leave to amend as to the common-law fraud-by-omission or fraudulent-concealment claim because the plaintiffs added that claim beyond the scope of the amendment previously authorized by the court. The court also dismissed Divina Pappas, Brian Pappas, Kali Wescott, and Eric Wescott because the operative complaint no longer asserted claims on their behalf. It struck the Michigan and Ohio subclasses because those plaintiffs no longer had claims to represent those subclasses.

Disposition

The court’s order granted in part and denied in part Honda’s motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs were required to file an amended complaint within 45 days. The court stated that failure to meet the deadline or cure the identified deficiencies would result in dismissal of the deficient claims with prejudice, and that any further motion to dismiss would be limited to claims amended under the order.