Quackenbush v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.

Background

This automobile products-liability class action concerns Honda vehicles equipped with VTC Actuator 14310-R44-A01, called the R44. The actuator controls engine valve timing. The opinion states that, in some vehicles, a locking pin prematurely disengaged, allowing part of the actuator to strike the housing and produce a brief rattle at startup. Honda investigated the issue from 2008 through 2016 and adopted six countermeasures, eventually replacing the R44 with a different part called the R5A.

The plaintiffs alleged that Honda failed to disclose the R44 defect and that the defect created a safety hazard. Their claims included violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Business and Professions Code section 17200, California and Illinois implied-warranty laws, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and fraudulent omission. The opinion states that the plaintiffs did not seek certification of a Virginia class.

Mary Quackenbush paid for an R44 repair on her 2012 Honda CR-V. Anne Pellettieri experienced a rattle in her 2014 Honda CR-V and received replacement parts through the suit without seeking a repair herself. Marissa Feeney paid for an actuator replacement on a used 2014 Honda CR-V and continued to hear the noise periodically.

Class certification

The court certified three modified classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23:

- A California new-and-used purchaser class covering current owners and former owners who sold or traded the vehicle to an authorized Honda dealer in California. Pellettieri was appointed representative. - A California repair class covering purchasers who paid to have the actuator repaired by an authorized Honda dealer in California. Quackenbush was appointed representative. - An Illinois repair class covering purchasers who paid to have the actuator repaired by an authorized Honda dealer in Illinois. Feeney was appointed representative.

The court did not certify the proposed Illinois class for purchasers who did not pay for a replacement because no proposed representative fit that class. The conclusion also states that the three certified subclasses were certified without the California and Illinois implied-warranty claims. The opinion discusses the classes as including specified Honda Accords, CR-Vs, and Crosstours sold from 2012 through the present, subject to the class definitions and vehicle limits described in the order.

The court held that common questions predominated because the countermeasures did not materially change the R44’s fundamental design. In the court’s view, common evidence could address whether the R44 had a design defect, what Honda knew about the defect, whether Honda had a duty to disclose it, whether consumers were exposed to information from dealership salespeople, and the alleged safety concerns. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ proposed damages model—based on the average repair cost and the benefit of the bargain—could be applied on a class-wide basis.

The court rejected certification of the implied-warranty claims because the plaintiffs had not shown that common evidence could establish whether the defect was substantially certain to appear during every class vehicle’s useful life. The available warranty data showed different repair rates by model and countermeasure and did not establish the likelihood of a later manifestation across all vehicles.

Other rulings

The court denied without prejudice the alternative request for a class seeking injunctive relief.

Honda moved to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs’ automotive expert Michael Stapleford under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards governing reliable expert testimony. The court denied that motion. It found that Stapleford’s opinions could aid the fact finder, were based in part on standard inspection and analysis methods, and did not constitute unreliable “junk science.” The court stated that challenges to possible alternative causes of engine damage could be addressed through cross-examination.

Disposition

The court certified the three modified subclasses without the specified California and Illinois implied-warranty claims, appointed the three class representatives and co-class counsel, denied without prejudice the alternative injunction-class request, and denied Honda’s motion to exclude Stapleford’s testimony. Counsel were ordered to submit proposed notice and distribution materials within 14 calendar days, with plaintiffs responsible for notice costs.