In Re Toyota Rav4 Hybrid Fuel Tank Litigation

Background

Thirty-nine plaintiffs from 29 states brought this proposed nationwide consumer class action against Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that Toyota represented in marketing and ownership materials that 2019–2021 RAV4 Hybrid vehicles and 2021 RAV4 Prime vehicles had 14.5-gallon fuel tanks and an estimated 580-mile range. They alleged that the vehicles could accept only about 8–11 gallons in some circumstances, reducing their mileage range to about 330–470 miles.

The plaintiffs asserted 94 state-law claims, including breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, violations of consumer-protection and unfair-competition laws, and unjust enrichment. They sought damages and injunctive and declaratory relief. Toyota moved to dismiss the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim.

The plaintiffs also challenged Toyota’s Customer Support Program, which offered replacement fuel tanks and fuel sender gauges for vehicles with certain reported fuel-filling and fuel-gauge conditions. The plaintiffs alleged that the program did not fix the alleged defect because it did not ensure that vehicles could accept the advertised 14.5 gallons.

Rulings on Previously Dismissed and Warranty Claims

The court granted Toyota’s motion as to the plaintiffs’ re-alleged claims that had previously been dismissed without leave to amend. Those claims included certain New Vehicle Limited Warranty express-warranty claims, implied-warranty claims, unjust-enrichment claims brought by non-California plaintiffs, and claims under Ohio, Nebraska, and Oklahoma consumer-protection laws.

The court also granted Toyota’s motion as to Perry, Mulcahy, Kafeyan, and Gentile’s New Vehicle Limited Warranty express-warranty and implied-warranty claims, without leave to amend at that time.

For other express-warranty claims, the result was mixed:

- The court granted dismissal of Wagner and Ramaeker’s claims, and granted dismissal of Birchfield and McPhie’s claims. Birchfield and McPhie were granted leave to amend. - The court denied dismissal of Klinkhammer and Colabraro’s claims. The court held that allegations about representations on third-party websites could be sufficient when the information was plausibly based on Toyota’s representations and reached consumers through those websites.

Active-Concealment Claims

The plaintiffs alleged that Toyota knew about the alleged defect before some purchases and leases and failed to warn consumers. They also argued that Toyota’s repair program falsely suggested that the problem had been fixed.

The court granted Toyota’s motion to dismiss the claims based on active concealment without leave to amend. It concluded that Toyota did not represent that the program would provide a usable 14.5-gallon capacity and therefore the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged that Toyota misrepresented the program’s effectiveness.

State Consumer-Protection Claims

The court denied dismissal of several state consumer-protection claims:

- Kahn and Ferraguto’s Massachusetts Chapter 93A claims; - Gentile’s Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim; - Birchfield’s Michigan Consumer Protection Act claim; and - Colabraro’s New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim.

For the Massachusetts claims, the court held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged an economic injury because they claimed they overpaid for vehicles that were worth less than represented. For Gentile’s Rhode Island claim, the court held that he adequately alleged reliance on Toyota’s website and a resulting overpayment. For Birchfield’s Michigan claim, the court held that the statute Toyota cited did not specifically authorize the advertising conduct at issue. For Colabraro’s New Jersey claim, the court relied on its conclusion that he adequately alleged awareness of and reliance on Toyota’s representations.

The court granted Toyota’s motion as to Kafeyan’s California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law claims to the extent they relied on fraudulent-omission or concealment theories, but granted leave to amend. The court found that Kafeyan had not adequately alleged that Toyota knew about the alleged RAV4 Prime defect before his purchase.

As to Klinkhammer’s Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. It granted dismissal without leave to amend as to injunctive relief because Klinkhammer did not adequately allege a real threat of future harm. It granted dismissal as to damages with leave to amend, allowing him to add a damages theory under Minnesota’s private-attorney-general statute if the claim could benefit the public.

Standing, Mootness, and the Customer Support Program

The court granted Toyota’s motion as to the plaintiffs’ standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief requiring Toyota to stop making representations about the vehicles’ fuel-tank capacity. The court dismissed those claims with leave to amend because the plaintiffs alleged only that they remained interested in Toyota vehicles and would consider purchasing or leasing another RAV4, rather than alleging that they planned or were likely to do so.

The court also dismissed, with leave to amend, the plaintiffs’ proposed injunctive claim seeking repairs through the Customer Support Program because they had not adequately alleged that the program was ineffective.

The court granted Toyota’s motion based on mootness and inadequate injury allegations, with leave to amend, except as to Perry. The court reasoned that an effective repair program could provide a full remedy for the alleged loss in vehicle value and overpayment. The court found that only Perry adequately alleged that the program had not worked; Tran’s vehicle allegedly accepted approximately 14.5 gallons after repair, and the other plaintiffs had not participated in the program. The court allowed the plaintiffs to amend to add information about other participants and the results of their repairs.

Other Procedural Rulings and Disposition

The court granted Toyota’s request for judicial notice of documents concerning the vehicles’ warranties and the Customer Support Program because the complaint referred extensively to those materials and their authenticity was not disputed.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ administrative motion to keep portions of their opposition under seal and directed the clerk to unseal the identified filing.

Overall, Judge Edward M. Chen granted Toyota’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The order disposed of Docket No. 110 but allowed amendment of several dismissed claims.