Quackenbush v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.

Background

This product-defect class action concerns owners who purchased certain Honda vehicles equipped with Variable Timing Control actuator 14310-R44-A01 from authorized Honda dealers. The plaintiffs seek recovery based on an alleged design defect in that actuator. The plaintiffs and defendants separately moved for reconsideration of an earlier order addressing class certification, which is the decision about whether the case may proceed on behalf of groups of similarly situated people.

Anne Pellettieri and the payment issue

The court corrected the earlier order’s statement that Anne Pellettieri was a California purchaser. The court found that she was an Illinois purchaser whose actuator rattled but was never fixed or replaced, and stated that she may represent an Illinois class of new and used purchasers who bought class vehicles from authorized Honda dealers.

The court declined to change its earlier ruling that Mary Quackenbush could not represent California purchasers who did not obtain or pay for a repair. Quackenbush purchased her vehicle from an authorized Honda dealer in California and paid for a replacement actuator. The court reasoned that her circumstances and incentive to recover repair costs differed from those of people who did not pay for repairs. Reconsideration on this issue was denied.

Illinois implied-warranty claims

The plaintiffs argued that the court had wrongly refused to certify Illinois implied-warranty-of-merchantability claims because it had not considered their cited Illinois authorities. The court disagreed. It found that the cited decisions did not address whether plaintiffs had to show that the alleged defect was substantially certain to appear during the vehicles’ useful lives. The court also rejected the argument that defendants had conceded the issue and found that the plaintiffs had not shown a clear failure to consider important facts or legal arguments. Reconsideration of this issue was denied.

Honda’s knowledge of a safety-related defect

Honda sought reconsideration of the earlier finding that common evidence could help determine whether Honda knew about an alleged safety-related defect. The court agreed that the earlier order misstated the dates of a Honda study: the study began in October 2010 and ended in April 2011, rather than continuing through 2014.

The court nevertheless concluded that the study supplied common evidence of Honda’s knowledge. The study found damage to cam-chain tensioner teeth under conditions the court viewed as intended to represent certain real-world starting and low-oil conditions. The court also considered Honda repair records, quality-improvement documents, and expert testimony connecting tensioner damage to possible engine timing problems. It found that the record contained common evidence relevant to whether Honda knew of a safety defect and therefore whether Honda had a duty to disclose the alleged defect when selling the vehicles. Honda’s request for reconsideration on this issue was denied.

Class definitions and certification

The court granted Honda’s request to exclude purchasers who paid for a repair and belonged to a repair class from the new-and-used classes, to avoid dual class membership or double recovery. The court also granted the plaintiffs’ request to exclude certain exempt individuals, including people who suffered personal injuries resulting from the alleged facts. All class members had to have purchased their class vehicle from an authorized Honda dealer. A person who received a free replacement part was not considered injured and was not a class member.

The court certified these classes:

- California Repair Class: People who purchased a new or used class vehicle equipped with the specified actuator from an authorized Honda dealer in California and paid an authorized Honda dealer in California to repair the actuator. Mary Quackenbush would represent this class. - Illinois Repair Class: People who purchased a new or used class vehicle equipped with the specified actuator from an authorized Honda dealer in Illinois and paid an authorized Honda dealer in Illinois to repair the actuator. Marissa Feeney would represent this class. - Illinois New and Used Purchaser Class: Current owners and former owners who resold or traded in the relevant vehicle to an authorized Honda dealer in Illinois, excluding repair-class members and purchasers who received an R5A replacement actuator free of charge. Anne Pellettieri would represent this class.

The court excluded defendants and specified related persons and entities, the assigned judge and the judge’s staff, and people who suffered personal injuries as a result of the alleged facts.

Disposition

Judge William Alsup ordered that the motions for reconsideration were granted in part and denied in part. Within 14 calendar days, counsel had to submit proposed notice and a proposed distribution plan including first-class mail. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the cost of notice.