Browning v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Background

This putative class action concerns 2018–2019 Honda Odyssey vehicles equipped with the ZF 9HP Automatic Transmission. The plaintiffs allege that two software modules—the Transmission Control Module and the Powertrain Control Module—did not communicate properly because Honda failed to calibrate the software correctly. They allege that the defect caused mistimed gear shifting, warning-light illumination, rough, delayed, or failed shifting, grinding or other loud noises, harsh gear engagement, sudden or harsh acceleration or deceleration, and sudden loss of power.

Four named plaintiffs—Ronda Ann Browning, Tony Boatwright, Chuen Yong, and Daniel Pina—asserted implied-warranty, express-warranty, and state consumer-protection claims. They sought to represent a nationwide class and five state subclasses. The motion addressed three consumer-protection claims under Florida, Texas, and California law, which were based on alleged fraud by omission.

Motion and analysis

Honda moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Honda argued that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged that Honda had a duty to disclose the alleged defect. The court explained that such a duty may arise when a defendant has exclusive knowledge of material facts unknown to the plaintiff.

The court had previously found that the second amended complaint did not adequately plead Honda’s pre-sale knowledge. In the third amended complaint, the plaintiffs identified several alleged sources of Honda’s knowledge: pre-sale testing, consumer complaints, complaints filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, technical service bulletins, and dealership repair orders.

The court found that the plaintiffs adequately connected nine technical service bulletins to the alleged transmission-programming defect at the pleading stage. It also rejected Honda’s arguments that the bulletins were insufficient because most concerned non-class vehicles and the bulletin involving class vehicles was issued after the plaintiffs’ purchases. The court stated that bulletins concerning other vehicles could support a plausible inference of knowledge when those vehicles had the same defective component, and that a later bulletin could support an inference that the manufacturer’s knowledge had accumulated before the bulletin was issued.

The plaintiffs alleged that the relevant vehicles shared the same transmission and defect and connected the remedies described in the bulletins to that defect. The court also considered the allegations about pre-sale testing, noting that the plaintiffs relied on the technical service bulletins in addition to those testing allegations. The court concluded that the allegations permitted a reasonable inference that Honda knew about the defect when the plaintiffs purchased their vehicles.

Disposition

The court DENIED Honda’s partial motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The ruling was made at the pleading stage and did not determine the ultimate validity of the claims or whether the plaintiffs will succeed on them.