A recent decision by Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the Central District of California, Falco, et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc., bodes well for plaintiffs seeking to certify a car defect class action. No. CV 13-00686 (C.D. Cal. April 5, 2016) (slip op. available here) (Mr. Falco is represented by Capstone Law APC). Judge Pregerson rejected several of the auto manufacturer defendant’s most popular tropes, namely, that the plaintiffs cannot identify a “single” common defect, that most class members did not experience the defect, that the defect is not safety-related, and that the plaintiffs cannot establish a cognizable damages theory.
The Falco plaintiffs alleged that the class vehicles (various model year Nissan Pathfinder, Maxima, Quest, Altima, Xterra, and Frontier vehicles) all suffered from a defectively designed Timing Chain Tensioning System that was prone to fail prematurely and that posed a safety risk. Nissan opposed certification claiming that there was no single defect, and therefore no commonality, because Nissan had issued various iterations of the slack guide in the Tensioning System with different parts over time. Citing the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 402 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2005), and Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010), the court held that “[i]n these consumer defect cases, commonality can be found in the very legal and factual question of the defect” where “the same defect is alleged across all class vehicles, and the assertion is supported by sufficient evidence . . . .” Slip op. at 11. Similarly, the court held that the predominance requirement was satisfied because “[t]he actual proof of common defect, or Defendant’s knowledge and subsequent actions, go to the merits of the claim, but common evidence will be used to prove the claim either way.” Id. at 19.
The district court also rejected Nissan’s claims that (1) there were individual issues regarding each class member’s knowledge about the defect based on information available on the Internet, (2) that “the vast majority [of class members] never experience a timing chain problem,” and (3) that the defect was not safety-related and was simply a “noise that consumers may not find troublesome.” Slip op. at 18. Concluding that common issues predominate, the court reasoned, “the evidence cited by Plaintiffs in their moving papers is sufficient at the this stage of the case to make out allegations common among the class as to the alleged vehicle defects, the effects of the alleged defect could have on the vehicle in terms of safety, and Nissan’s knowledge of the defect.” Id. at 19. With respect to class-wide damages, the court found that the plaintiffs sufficiently provided a common damages formula based on the average cost of repair. It noted that that class members spent money “that they would not have needed to spend had Nissan either disclosed the effect or repaired itself. Thus, return of the average cost of repair would provide restitution to these class members because they have already spent that money to repair or diagnose their vehicles.” Id. at 30. Additionally, the court stated that by receiving restitution under the fraud and breach of warranty claims, “the class would be getting the benefit of their bargain because they would be put in the same position they would have had the car not been sold with the defective timing chain system—it is the cost necessary to make the vehicles conform to the value Plaintiffs thought they were getting in the price tendered.” Id. at 31.
Nissan has sought permission to appeal Judge Pregerson’s decision pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which the plaintiffs have opposed. If the Falco decision stands, the opinion, together with the plaintiffs’ briefing on the motion, will provide a roadmap for rebutting defendants’ key arguments in opposition to class certification in a car defect action.
Jordan Lurie, Of Counsel
CAPSTONE LAW APC