Quackenbush v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.

Background

This certified consumer class action involved an allegedly defective R44-A01, or VTC actuator, an engine component. The remaining certified classes consisted of vehicle owners in California and Illinois who purchased the component-equipped vehicles and paid out of pocket for repairs. The plaintiffs claimed that Honda’s failure to disclose the defect violated California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

At trial, the jury found Honda liable on the Illinois claim but not the California claim. The parties had stipulated to the damages amount if the jury found liability, resulting in a $1,398,624 award for the Illinois class.

Motion to Decertify the Classes

Honda argued that the classes should be decertified because its knowledge of the defect varied depending on when each class member bought a vehicle. Honda pointed to different measures it used over time to address the VTC actuator rattle and argued that there were periods when it believed the problem had been solved.

The court denied the motion. It relied on its earlier certification and reconsideration orders, which found common evidence about Honda’s knowledge of the alleged defect. The court reasoned that differences in Honda’s knowledge of the precise mechanism of the malfunction did not eliminate common evidence concerning premature disengagement and the alleged defect. The jury’s verdict also did not require relitigating the basis for class certification.

Judgment as a Matter of Law and New Trial

Judgment as a matter of law is a ruling that takes a case away from the jury when the evidence legally cannot support the verdict. Honda’s pre-submission motion for that relief was denied as moot because the court had not ruled on it before sending the case to the jury. Honda then renewed the motion after trial and alternatively requested a new trial.

Honda argued that the Illinois class had not established a safety hazard, that some members had suffered no actual loss, and that there was insufficient evidence that every class member had been deceived by a Honda communication.

The court rejected the safety-hazard argument because Illinois law requires a defect to be material to consumers, not necessarily a safety hazard or a threat to central vehicle functioning. The court concluded that a jury could reasonably find that the grinding rattle and the concern it raised about engine functionality were material to Illinois consumers. The trial evidence included Honda’s years-long investigation and testimony from Illinois class representative Marissa Feeney.

The court also rejected Honda’s argument that some class members lacked an actual loss because the defect appeared after the vehicle’s asserted 150,000-mile useful life. The Illinois class was limited to people whose defect manifested and who paid out of pocket for a repair. Under the court’s benefit-of-the-bargain reasoning, those people incurred the relevant injury when they bought vehicles containing the undisclosed defect, regardless of the vehicle’s mileage or condition at purchase.

The court further held that class plaintiffs did not need to prove that every intermediary—such as an authorized dealer—was deceived by Honda’s technical service bulletins. For a manufacturer’s failure to disclose a material design defect, the plaintiffs could prevail by showing that a reasonable consumer would have been misled by the omission.

The court denied the alternative request for a new trial. It found that the verdict was not contrary to the clear weight of the evidence and that the jury instructions adequately explained the Illinois materiality standard. Accordingly, Honda’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and its alternative motion for a new trial were denied.

Motion to Alter the Judgment

The plaintiffs asked the court to add pre-judgment interest to the $1,398,624 Illinois judgment. The court determined that California and Illinois law differed on whether such interest was available, but concluded that only Illinois had an interest in having its law applied to the Illinois class’s recovery.

Applying Illinois law, the court declined to find the Illinois Interest Act applicable and held that the plaintiffs had not established a basis for an award of pre-judgment interest. The motion to alter the judgment was denied.

Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Service Award

The plaintiffs requested attorney’s fees, reimbursement of costs, and a $5,000 award for class representative Marissa Feeney. The court applied Illinois law and explained that fee awards under the Illinois consumer-fraud statute are discretionary. It found that some reduction was required because the plaintiffs prevailed only on the Illinois Repair class, while they lost on the Illinois New and Used Purchaser class at summary judgment and on the California class at trial.

The court reduced pre-trial and non-trial hours by 94% to account for the substantially different Illinois class theories. It reduced trial-related hours by 30% to account for work devoted exclusively to non-Illinois claims. The resulting lodestar—the reasonable hours multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate—was $1,508,841.10. The court then applied an additional 20% reduction and awarded $1,207,072.88 in attorney’s fees.

The court excluded expert fees from recoverable costs under Illinois law. It also denied $1,500 for trial-equipment rental and $603.35 in witness fees. The court awarded $315,975.93 in costs and ruled that Honda bears the administration costs for the prevailing Illinois class.

The court denied Feeney’s requested $5,000 class-representative award because her claims were the same as those of the class members and all class members recovered equivalent amounts. Overall, the plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and service award was granted in part and denied in part. The total award was $1,523,048.81, consisting of $1,207,072.88 in fees and $315,975.93 in costs.

Motions to Seal and Conclusion

The court granted Honda’s motion to seal documents concerning motions in limine because the materials contained customer and non-party vehicle-owner identifying information or confidential business information and were only tangentially related to the merits. The court also granted the plaintiffs’ motion to seal attorney billing records because they might implicate privileged information and were likewise only tangentially related to the merits.

The court’s final dispositions were: Honda’s motion to decertify the classes was denied; Honda’s motions for judgment as a matter of law or alternatively for a new trial were denied; the plaintiffs’ motion to alter the judgment was denied; the plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and service award was granted in part and denied in part; and both motions to seal were granted. Judge William Alsup signed the order on December 1, 2023.