Johnson v. Nissan North America, Inc.

Background

Plaintiffs moved to substitute Anna Wall as the class representative for the California class and subclasses and Sandria Smith as the class representative for the New York class and subclasses. They also sought leave to file a Sixth Amended Complaint. The motion followed plaintiffs’ April 1, 2025, narrowing of the class definitions. The revised California and New York definitions required that the subject vehicle have been first sold in the relevant state, among other requirements.

The existing California representative, Sherida Johnson, owned a class vehicle first sold in Nevada. The existing New York representative, Subrina Seenarain, owned a class vehicle first sold in Tennessee. Plaintiffs argued that Johnson and Seenarain remained eligible to pursue individual relief but no longer fit the revised definitions as class representatives. Smith, the proposed New York representative, purchased a used class vehicle.

The court had previously certified classes in California, New York, Colorado, and Florida. After an appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that order. At a later case-management conference, the court required updated class definitions and information about the remaining claims and damages. Discovery was scheduled to close on February 13, 2026, with trial scheduled to begin on June 8, 2026.

Nissan’s objections

Nissan argued that plaintiffs were using substitution to address a long-standing dispute about whether damages could be proven for class members who purchased used vehicles. Nissan asked the court to decertify and dismiss the California and New York subclasses, asserting that Johnson and Seenarain lacked standing when the classes were certified because their vehicles were first sold outside the relevant states.

The court rejected that argument. It held that Johnson and Seenarain had standing when certification occurred because the earlier class definitions did not require vehicles to have been first sold in the class state. The revised definitions changed the requirements, meaning the representatives no longer had standing to represent the newly defined subclasses, even though they had standing to bring their individual claims.

Nissan also argued that substitution would violate statutory time limits, create a personal-jurisdiction problem, and be futile because Wall had not initially filed a venue affidavit and a notice under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The court rejected each argument. It noted that the New York subclass had already been certified, that it had previously rejected similar jurisdiction arguments, that a venue declaration had been submitted, and that plaintiffs had sent a supplemental notice letter. The court did not resolve the parties’ broader dispute about damages for used vehicles; it stated that Nissan could raise that issue in a future motion directed at plaintiffs’ expert reports.

Rules and analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a party seeking to modify a scheduling order must show good cause, which principally concerns the party’s diligence. The court found good cause because plaintiffs acted within about a month after Nissan clarified its concerns in the March 2025 case-management filings. Plaintiffs narrowed the class definitions, searched for substitute representatives, and indicated their intention to file the motion in the April discovery plan.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, leave to amend may be denied for reasons including bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, futility, or repeated amendment. The court found no bad faith or undue delay. It also found that the proposed amendment was limited: plaintiffs sought to add two class representatives rather than add new liability theories or substantive facts. Because discovery remained open for several months, the court found Nissan’s claimed burden and prejudice unpersuasive.

Disposition

The motion was GRANTED. Anna Wall was substituted as class representative for the California class and subclasses, and Sandria Smith was substituted as class representative for the New York class and subclasses. The class-certification order was amended to conform to the ruling, and plaintiffs were ordered to file the Sixth Amended Complaint within seven days. The opinion did not state that the motion was granted with or without prejudice.