In Re Toyota Rav4 Hybrid Fuel Tank Litigation

Background

This proposed consumer class action was brought by 39 plaintiffs from 29 states against Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that Toyota represented in marketing and ownership materials that certain RAV4 Hybrid vehicles had 14.5-gallon fuel tanks, when the tanks allegedly accepted only 8 to 11 gallons in some circumstances. They alleged that this reduced the vehicles’ driving range from an expected 580 miles to approximately 330 to 470 miles. The complaint asserted 94 state-law claims for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, violations of consumer-protection and unfair-competition laws, and unjust enrichment.

Toyota created a Customer Support Program offering replacement fuel tanks and fuel-sender gauges for vehicles with a verified condition. The plaintiffs alleged that the program did not adequately fix the problem or cover vehicles that accepted between 12 and 14.5 gallons. Toyota moved to dismiss the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s analysis and rulings

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

The court 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. It granted in part and denied in part Toyota’s motion concerning other express-warranty claims. The court granted the motion as to Wagner, Ramaeker, Birchfield, and McPhie’s express-warranty claims and denied it as to Klinkhammer and Colabraro’s claims. The court reasoned that Klinkhammer and Colabraro plausibly alleged that they relied on Toyota-related representations distributed through third-party websites. The conclusion states that Birchfield and McPhie could amend their claims, although an earlier portion of the opinion states that their claims were dismissed without leave to amend.

The court granted Toyota’s motion as to the plaintiffs’ active-concealment theories without leave to amend. The court held that Toyota’s Customer Support Program materials did not represent that the repair would provide a usable 14.5-gallon capacity, so the plaintiffs’ proposed theory that Toyota concealed the defect by offering an ineffective repair could not proceed on the allegations presented.

The court granted in part and denied in part Toyota’s motion concerning state consumer-protection claims. It denied the motion as to 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. It granted the 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, with leave to amend. The court concluded that Kafeyan had not adequately alleged that Toyota knew about the RAV4 Prime defect before sale.

As to Klinkhammer’s Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim, the court granted in part and denied in part Toyota’s motion. It granted the motion without leave to amend as to injunctive relief because Klinkhammer did not adequately allege a real threat that he would buy or lease another vehicle. It granted the motion as to damages with leave to amend, allowing Klinkhammer to add a damages theory under Minnesota’s private-attorney-general statute.

The court granted Toyota’s challenge to the plaintiffs’ standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief requiring Toyota to stop making representations about fuel-tank capacity, with leave to amend. It also dismissed the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction concerning the Customer Support Program, with leave to amend, because they had not adequately alleged that the program was ineffective.

The court granted Toyota’s motion based on mootness or lack of a plausible injury, with leave to amend, except as to Perry. The court held that only Perry adequately alleged that the repair program was ineffective; Tran’s vehicle allegedly accepted approximately 14.5 gallons after repair, and the other plaintiffs had not participated in the program or otherwise shown whether it was effective. The court allowed the plaintiffs to amend to add allegations about other participants in the program.

The court also granted Toyota’s request for judicial notice of specified warranty and Customer Support Program documents. Separately, it denied the plaintiffs’ administrative motion to keep portions of their opposition sealed and ordered the clerk to unseal the specified filing. The order disposed of Toyota’s motion to dismiss, Docket No. 110.