On March 3, the Central District of California denied class certification in a putative automotive class action against Toyota. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish commonality under Rule 23(a)(2), as well as predominance or superiority under Rule 23(b)(3), and could not seek certification under Rule 23(b)(2).

• The plaintiffs alleged that their Toyota vehicles’ heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) systems emitted foul odors and blew mold into the vehicles, and that Toyota knowingly concealed this purported design defect. The putative class vehicles spanned 13 different car models (each produced over several years), resulting in 84 total model years. The plaintiffs alleged that Toyota committed fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty under multiple state laws, and violated various state consumer protection statutes. The plaintiffs sought to certify two nationwide classes and eight state sub-classes.
• Toyota opposed class certification, contending that the plaintiffs could not establish commonality, predominance, or superiority, and that the class could not be certified under Rule 23(b)(2).
• Before deciding those issues, the court considered Toyota’s Daubert challenge to the plaintiffs’ expert’s opinion that the HVAC systems contained a common defect across all vehicle models that could theoretically allow mold to grow. While the court denied the motion to exclude, it gave little weight to the expert’s opinion, finding that his failure to test any of the putative class vehicles meant that his hypothetical analysis did “little to answer” whether the HVAC systems in fact developed mold.
• The court then denied class certification on several grounds:
  • As for commonality and predominance, it found that design differences in the HVAC systems of the various vehicle models precluded the plaintiffs from showing that the systems were sufficiently similar. Moreover, the court held that “[b]ecause the inference of exposure and reliance is not available in sales outside an authorized dealership, individual inquiries would be required … to determine whether putative class members purchased their Class Vehicles from Toyota or a third party.” Privity requirements also varied across the relevant state laws for the implied warranty claims.
  • The court similarly rejected the plaintiffs’ superiority arguments. It agreed with Toyota that the number of individualized issues (including differences in statutes of limitations and other material variations in state law) would require mini-trials, rendering class adjudication impractical.
  • Finally, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ last-ditch attempt to certify “injunctive relief” classes under Rule 23(b)(2), finding that the plaintiffs’ request for extended warranty coverage and certain repairs was “almost indistinguishable from Plaintiffs’ request for benefit-of-the-bargain damages.”
• By concluding that the plaintiffs failed to identify a single common question—let alone prove that common issues predominated—the court took issue with the sprawling nature of the putative classes. It noted that commonality is generally only found “where the proposed classes are far less varied, often consisting of only a few car models or years, and [where] there is no evidence that the allegedly defective component was redesigned during the class period or varied by car model.” This opinion will prove helpful to automotive defendants facing putative class actions in which plaintiffs’ counsel has attempted to inflate potential damages by encompassing numerous different vehicle models in the class.

The case is Stockinger v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., and you can read more here.